The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to time served, considering the petitioner's socio-economic status and the duration of legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner even in the second round, therefore, learned counsel Mr. Kuldeep Sharma is appointed as amicus curiae in this matter. The remuneration to the amicus curiae shall be paid by Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted a report received from Police Station Sadar Pali, District Pali wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner Shyamlal is alive.

3. Heard.

4. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 23.06.2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal Appeal No.7/2004 whereby the learned appellate Court rejected the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 07.01.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (S.D.), Pali in Criminal Case No.22/2003 whereby learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-

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

6. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 13.10.2002, complainant Kailash submitted a written report at Police Station Sadar Pali to the extent that today at about 2 PM, the present petitioner was taking 25-30 persons in his tractor trolley to a temple. When they reached highway, the petitioner was driving the tractor rashly & negligently and trying to overtake from wrong side. As a result of this, the tractor trolley overturned and a passenger died on the spot and other passengers got injured. 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.

7. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for offences under Sections 279 , 304-A , 337 & 338 of IPC upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 32 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 2 witnesses were examined in defence. After hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge convicted the accused for offence under Sections 279 , 337 , 338 & 304A of IPC vide judgment dated 07.01.2004. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Pali which was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.06.2004. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.

8. Learned counsel Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, 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 1 month & 4 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 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.

9. 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 1 month & 4 days and except the present one no other case has been registered against him.

10. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the mat