The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving but reduced the sentence based on the time served and the petitioner's societal status and financial hardship.

ORDER :

1. Earlier on 08.01.2025, 22.01.2025, 05.02.2025 and 19.02.2025 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 numerous occasions, 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. Kuldeep 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 14.03.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara, in Criminal Appeal No.41/2004 whereby the learned appellate Court while rejecting the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 15.09.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara, in Criminal Case No.100/2001 by which the learned trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-

6. All 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 02.03.2001 complainant Fakruddin Lodged a report at Police Station Gulabpura, to the effect that on 02.03.2001 at about 8.30 P.M. an accident was caused by a tractor bearing registration No.RJ-01-R- 3704, which was driven by petitioner rashly and negligently and in the said accident one person was injured and another 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.

8. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for offences under Sections 279 , 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC and Section 192 of M.V. Act and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as eighteen 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. In defence, three witnesses were examined and some documents were exhibited. 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 and Section 146 /196 of M.V. Act vide judgment dated 15.09.2004 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge Gulabpura, District Bhilwara, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.03.2007. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.

9. Learned counsel Mr. Kuldeep 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 th