The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to time already served, emphasizing justice and leniency due to the petitioner's long-standing trial and personal circumstances.

ORDER :

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.)

Earlier on 28.08.2024 and 12.02.2025 no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Today even in the second round also, no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor submits a report from which it is found that the petitioner is still alive. Report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor is taken on record.

3. Since on various occasion, no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the petitioner is still alive, therefore, it is in the interest of justice that learned counsel Mr. Pallav Sharma is hereby appointed as Amicus curiae in this case. He shall be paid his remuneration by the Legal Services Authority as per Legal Aid Scheme.

4. Heard on the revision petition.

5. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 05.08.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bhilwara, in Criminal Appeal No.40/2006 whereby the learned appellate Court while rejecting the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 24.11.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhilwara, in Criminal Regular Case No.85/2000 by which the learned trial Judge has convicted & sentenced the petitioner as under:-

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

7. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 10.02.2000 complainant Sanjay Kumar Lodged a report at concerned Police Station to the effect that on 10.02.2000 at about 1.30 P.M. when he alongwith Laxman Jat and Laxman Acharya were coming from temple. When they reached at Circle of village Harni then a Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-06-P-0834 driven by petitioner rashly and negligently and hit the petitioner. On this report, the FIR was lodged against the petitioner. After usual investigation, charge- sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner in the Court concerned.

8. 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 nine 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 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 & 304-A of IPC vide judgment dated 24.11.2005 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bhilwara, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 05.08.2006. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.

9. Learned counsel Mr. Pallav Sharma, Amicus Curiae, 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. He had remained in jail for more than one month 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 2000 and he has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence.

10. Learned Public Prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact tha