IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the principle of proportionality in sentencing, allowing reduction based on mitigating circumstances while maintaining conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Upman, J.

1. By way of this criminal writ petition, the convict-petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 27.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Sikar in Regular Criminal Appeal (CIS) No.135/2019, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.07.2019 passed by learned Gram Nyayalaya, Kudli, District Sikar in Regular Criminal Case No.30/2012 (CIS No.30/2012) and affirmed the same. Vide judgment dated 26.07.2019 passed by the learned trial court, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on 09.12.2011, complainant Ranveer Singh submitted a written report to ASI Mohanlal, PS Dadiya at S.K. Hospital, Sikar inter alia alleging that on 09.12.2011, he along with his family members were going to Jaipur from Balwantpura in Innova Car No.RJ 18 UB 0050. The car was being driven by Shivkaran. His wife Rekha, aged 38 years, his daughter Heena @ Vaishali Kanwar, aged 15 years and his son Abhinandan, aged 12 years were also there in the car. It is alleged that driver (petitioner herein) of Video-Coach Bus No.RJ 19 PA 4237, while driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner, hit against their car due to which, his wife Rekha and children sustained serious injuries. They were taken to hospital where during treatment, his wife Smt. Rekha Kanwar and daughter Heena @ Vaishali expired.

3. On the basis of the above report, FIR No.322/2011 was registered at the Police Station Dadiya for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC and investigation was commenced. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court concerned against the present petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC where charges were framed against the accused petitioner. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. During course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 16 documents. The accused petitioner was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein, he denied the prosecution evidence and claimed himself to be innocent. However, he did not produce any evidence in defence.

5. After considering the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 26.07.2019, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner, as mentioned above.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.07.2019, the petitioner filed an appeal before learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.4, Sikar. However, during arguments before learned appellate court, counsel representing the petitioner herein did not challenge conviction of the accused petitioner recorded by the learned trial court and prayed for release of the petitioner on probation. Vide judgment dated 27.03.2024, the learned appellate court did not accept the prayer for grant of benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act and while dismissing the appeal, affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court. At the same time, the petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation under Section 357(A) of Cr.P.C. to be paid to injured Ranveer, Shivkaran and legal heirs of deceased Smt. Rekha Kanwar and Kumari Heena Kanwar. Hence this criminal writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to assail the conviction of the petitioner on merits and confines his arguments with the alternative p