The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to the time already served, considering the petitioner's circumstances and the lengthy trial duration.

Order :

1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 10.08.2006 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge Jaisalmer, (for short, “the appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.13/2004 while rejecting the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 06.04.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate Jaisalmer, in Criminal Original Case No.26/2003 by which the learned trial Judge has convicted & sentenced the petitioner as under:-

2. Both 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 complainant Manoj gave a written report to the concerned Police Station to the effect that on 31.12.2002 he went to Resort for party alongwith Ajay and Manish in his Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-19-T-1938. When they reached near Village Khuhari, a jeep bearing registration No.RJ-15-P-220 drove by the petitioner rashly and negligently hit his jeep. As a result of this accident, passengers were injured and out of which Ajay was succumbed to injuries. On this report, the FIR No.01/2003 was lodged at concerned Police Station, against the petitioner. 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 & 304-A of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as eight witnesses were examined and certain 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 exhibited certain documents. 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 & 304-A of IPC vide judgment dated 06.04.2004 and sentenced him. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the District & Sessions Judge Jaisalmer, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.08.2006. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.

5. Learned counsel Mr. L.D. Khatri, 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 fifteen 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 has been facing trial since the year 2003 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 fifteen 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 learned trial court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

8. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the petitioner remained in jail for some time and he has been facing the rigor for last 22 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Harip