The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving but modified the sentence to the time already served, emphasizing justice and the petitioner's circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 14.09.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 28/2004 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh in Criminal Case No. 105/1992 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:

2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.

3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 11.04.1992 at about 4:00 p.m., complainant Kesia Meena gave an oral report to the Police at Government Hospital, Pratapgarh to the effect that after loading stones in the Tractor bearing No. RNM 1547, he along with one Rakma was returning to Pratapgarh. The said tractor was being driven by petitioner Gopal. When they reached near Imli Bus Stand, some passengers sat in the trolley of the tractor and thereafter, the petitioner drove the tractor rashly and negligently and due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, the tractor-trolley overturned and the persons sitting in the trolley sustained severe injuries. Upon the aforesaid oral report, an FIR was registered under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. After usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner in the Court concerned under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC and Section 134/187 of MV Act.

4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 10 witnesses were examined and 28 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same and then, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC and Section 134/187 of MV Act vide judgment dated 20.11.2003 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.09.2004. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Ramesh Purohit, representing the petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 1992. He had remained in jail for eight days after passing of the judgment by the appellate Court. No other case has been reported against him. He hails from a very poor family and belongs to the weaker section of the society. He was 26 years old at the time of incident now, he is aged about 58 years and is facing trial since the year 1992 and he has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence.

6. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that t