The court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to reflect the time served, considering the petitioner's personal circumstances and hardships.

Order :

1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 20.06.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur, in Criminal Appeal No.26/2005 (66/2005) whereby the learned appellate Court while rejecting the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 04.05.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udaipur, in Regular Criminal Case No.21/2003 by which the learned trial Judge has convicted &sentenced the petitioner 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. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 11.07.1999 complainant Kailashchand gave a report at to the effect that on 11.07.1999 at about 7.15 P.M. when he went to his village Karanpur in Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-27-P-2657. In the said jeep total 10-12 passengers were present. When the jeep reached at Debari Petrol Pump then the same driven by the petitioner rashly and negligently and the jeep has overturned. Due to which, few of the passengers were received injuries and out of which one passenger was succumbed to injuries. 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.

4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as eleven 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, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC vide judgment dated 04.05.2005 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.06.2006. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Sanjay Nahar, 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 1999. He had remained in jail for sixteen 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 1999 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 sixteen 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 26 years. Thus, in the light of