The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, considering the petitioner's age, economic status, and clean record, reducing it to time already served.

Order :

1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 27.11.2004, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta in Criminal Original Case No.100/2002 whereby he was tried and convicted for offence under Sections 279, 337, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The petitioner was sentenced as follows:

• Under Section 279 IPC – One month of simple imprisonment • Under Section 337 IPC – One month of simple imprisonment • Under Section 304A IPC – One year and six months simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to further undergo – An additional 15 days of imprisonment.

• All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The Criminal Appeal No.36/2004 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed in its entirety by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta vide its judgment and order dated 27.09.2005 by affirming both the conviction and the sentence.

2. Mr. Mridul Jain Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Manoj Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the threshold urges that in light of the material available on record and the reasoned findings of the trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, he does not wish to challenge the finding of guilt. However, he seeks modification in the order of sentence by reducing it to the period already undergone.

3. I have cursory look over the quality of evidence brought on record and feels that indeed the Courts below have not erred in convicting the accused petitioner thus, the petition is dismissed to the extent of conviction.

4. So far ad the question relates to order of sentence is concerned, it is notable that the incident occurred on the intervening night of 12-13^th April, 2002 in a rural area. The petitioner was driving a truck which hit a tractor and a trolley attached to it and the hook connecting the trolley to the tractor broke, resulting injuries to 11 passengers sitting in the trolley amongst which one Purkharam succumbed to his injuries during treatment. The accident took place at approximately 5:00 AM. The petitioner is a resident of remote village of Western Rajasthan and certainly is a poor person since he is a driver by profession. He was 40 years of age at the time of incident and now he is 63 years old man.

5. The maximum punishment prescribed under Section 304A IPC is two years of imprisonment. The petitioner has already undergone two and a half months in custody during the trial. Looking to his age, economic condition, and passage of time and the fact that he has clean character; this Court does not find it appropriate to send him back to jail to serve the remaining sentence. In light of the facts and circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to partly allow the revision petition.

6. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Petition is a party allowed. The judgment of conviction is maintained. The order of sentence awarded by the learned ACJM, Merta vide order dated 27.11.2004 in Criminal Original Case No.100/2002 and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Criminal Appeal No.36/2004 are maintained. It is ordered that the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

7. Record of the case be sent back forthwith.