The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving but modified the sentence to time already served, considering the petitioner's socio-economic background and the duration of the trial.

Judgment :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 08.08.2006 passed by the learned Session Judge, Balotra, District Barmer, in Criminal Appeal No.07/2004 whereby the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner and while acquitting the petitioner for offences under Section 132/187 of MV Act , maintained his conviction and sentence for offences under Sections Sections 279, 304-A , 337 & 338 of IPC and Section 134/187 of the MV Act as awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Balotra, District Barmer vide judgment dated 04.08.2004 passed in Criminal Original Case No.305/2000. The details of the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are 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. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 02.09.2000, complainant Jaisaram lodged a written report at Police Station Sindhari to the effect that on the same day at around 05:30 PM while he was waiting for a bus, a jeep bearing registration No. RJ 04 P 0388 and a truck bearing registration No. RRY 5511 being driven by one Mohanlal Vishnoi in a rash and negligent manner, collided as a result of which, the jeep driver namely Rauram died on the spot and the other occupants of the jeep also sustained serious injuries. The truck driver fled the spot of incident. On the basis of the said report, the police registered a case under Sections 279, 304-A & 337 of IPC and Sections 132/187, 137/187 and 134/187 of the MV Act and commenced the investigation.

4. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

5. Thereafter, the trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 279, 337 , 338 & 304-A of IPC and Sections 132 & 134/187 of MV Act , who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses and submitted a total of 20 documents in support of their case. The accused-petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegations leveled against him and claimed trial.

The accused-petitioner produced DW/1 in support of his case.

7. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Balotra, District Barmer after hearing the final arguments of both sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 304-A , 337 and 338 of IPC and Sections 132/187 & 134/187 of the MV Act vide its judgment and order dated 04.08.2004. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence before learned Session Judge, Balotra, District Barmer, whereby the appellate court partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner and while acquitting the accused- petitioner for the offence under Section 132/187, maintained his conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 279, 304-A , 337 and 338 of IPC and Section 134/187 of the MV Act vide judgment dated 08.08.2006.

8. Learned counsel Mr. R.J. Punia, 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 2000. The accused-petitioner had remained in judicial custody for about one month out of total sentence of two years’ R.I. No other case has been reported against him. He hails from a very poor family and belongs to the weaker section of the society.