The court modified the sentence to the time already served, emphasizing justice and considering the petitioner's age and hardships.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 15.10.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi, in Criminal Appeal No.115/2003 whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 31.10.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sirohi in Criminal Case No.218/2000 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and 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. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 17.05.2000, PW/2 Keva Ram lodged a written report at Police Station Barloot alleging inter alia that in the morning at about 08:00 AM, he and his brother Rana Ram along with his wife Shaku and others were going to Sirohi for ‘”Darshan of Mataji” in a Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-16-T-0273 driven by Dinesh Kumar Harijan. Near Mandvariya Chauraha, another Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-24-T-0097 driven by Rata Ram coming from the opposite direction collided with it due to which the Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-16-T-0273 overturned and Rana Ram, brother of PW/2 Keva Ram fell down and died on the spot. On the basis of this written report, a case under aforesaid Sections was registered and investigation commenced. Charges were framed against the petitioner for aforesaid offences who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of the trial, as many as 19 witnesses were examined. The accused-petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegations against him and stated that he was not driving the Jeep when the accident occurred.

4. The Learned Magistrate convicted the accused-petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC and awarded the sentence of simple imprisonment and fine vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2003. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence before learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi, whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 15.10.2005.

5. Learned counsel Mr. B.S. Deora, 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 2 months 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. The accused-petitioner was aged about 19 years in 2000 at the time of incident and the accused-petitioner is aged about 44 years at present and is 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.

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 2 months and except the present one, no other case has been registered against him