IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving but reduced the sentence to the time already served, considering the petitioner's age and 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 26.06.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2004 whereby the learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 25.03.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Chittorgarh in Criminal Case No. 137/2002 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 31.05.2002, complainant-Jagdish Chandra gave an oral information that today at about 04:30 PM. he along with his brother Ashok @ Shokin were working at the garage. At that time, a mini truck bearing registration number RJ-05-G-2737, which was being driven by the accused-petitioner was coming from Bhilwara at very high speed. The truck hit Ashok due to which he suffered injuries on his head & hand, thereafter, while he was taken to the hospital in the same truck, the truck over turned near Birla Shiksha Kendra. Due to over turning of truck, the complainant also suffered injuries and during treatment Ashok died. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused-petitioner Banwari Lal. Upon the aforesaid information, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner in the Court concerned.

4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 7 witnesses were examined and some 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 & 304A of IPC vide judgment dated 25.03.2004 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Court, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 26.06.2004. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.

5. Learned senior counsel Mr. Manish Shishodia, 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 2002. He had remained in jail for about 12 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 24 years old at the time of incident, now he is aged about 46 years and is facing trial since the year 2002 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 the petitioner has remained behind the bars for about 12 days and except the present one no other case has been registered against him.

7. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by