Full Judgment
Rajendra Saxena, J.
1. This revision petition has been directed against the judgment dated 21st March 1995 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barmer, whereby he dismissed petitioner's appeal and maintained his conviction for the offences underSection 304A and 279 I.P.C. and sentence for six months simple imprisonment and three months simple imprisonment respectively recorded by learned Civil Judge (JD) cum Judicial Magistrate, Barmer by his judgment dated 3-12-1994.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 25-12-1988 at about 7 PM, petitioner while driving truck No. RJC 4903 on the Barmer-Sindhari Road rashly and negligently hit the cycle, which deceased Chatarsingh aged about 35 years, was driving and caused injury to the latter who died instantaneously on the spot. On the report of PW 6 Veersingh, FIR Ex. P-5 was drawn at Police Station, Barmer at 7.30 PM on the same day. After usual investigation, the police submitted the challan before learned trial Magistrate against the petitioner for the offences underSection 279 and 304A I.P.C. The petitioner denied the indictment and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. The petitioner in his plea recorded underSection 313, Cr. PC denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. However he did not adduce any evidence in defence. After trial, the learned Magistrate by his judgment dated 3-12-1994 convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner indicated above and his appeal was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.
3. I have heard Mr. JS Chudhary learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rathore learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the lower Court.
4. Mr. J. S. Chaudhary has rightly not challenged the concurrent findings of act of the lower Court as well as petitioner's conviction for the offences underSection 279 and 304A I.P.C. which stand well proved beyond any reasonable doubt, from the evidence recorded in this case. The only contention of Shri Chaudhary is that the petitioner is of 60 years of age. that he has been facing the trial since December 1988 and thus undergone huge mental agoly and harassment. The petitioner has also been under detention for a period of 1 month and 5 days. Shri Chaudhary has, therefore, prayed that petitioner's sentence be reduced to the period alaready undergone by him.
5. On the other hand, Shri Rathore, the learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously contended that there are no mitigating circumstances in this case and as such the quantum of punishment imposed on him is not excessive. He has further contended that Chatarsingh has lost his life and his family members have been left without a bread earner.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions.
7. In Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi, : [1974]1SCR204 the drivers of a truck and an autorickshaw were both responsible for the collision that took place between their vehicles before the autorickshaw dashed against a child resulting in his death. The incident has occurred about 8 years back. the apex Court taking in view aforesaid mitigating circumstances reduced the sentence of imprisonment from 6 months to the period of three weeks of imprisonment already undergone by the accused.
8. In Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (Union Territory of Delhi), : AIR 1977 SC892 . the accused was convicted underSection 304A I.P.C. and sentenced to 2 months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-. Having regard to the special facts and circumstances of the case Supreme Court reduced the imprisonment to one month and enhanced fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further directed that amount so recovered be paid to the deceased's widow by way of compensation.
9. In Kamu Khan v. State of Rajasthan 1982 Cri LR (Raj), 127 the accused was found guilty for the offence underSection 304A I.P.C. This Court taking into consideration the fact that the incident was about 9 years old and that the accused had remained in custody for eight days, reduced his sentence to the period already undergone by him.
10. In Mangtu Khan v. State, 1989 RCC 270, the accused was convicted for the offences Under Section 304A and 279, I.P.C. and sufferred sentence for period of 24 days. This Court taking into consideration the fact that the incident took place about 7 years ago reduced his substantive sentence to the period of sentence already sufferred by him. However he was fined Rs. 2,000/- which was ordered to be paid to the heirs of the victim.
11. Now adverting to the facts of the ease on hand. I find that the incident took place on 25-12-1988 i.e. about six and half years ago. Since then the petitioner has to undergo mental agony, harassment and financial burden in facing the investigation, trial of this case and in prosecuting his appeal and this revision. He has already suffered imprisonment for a period of about one month and 5 days till this date. He is an old man of about 60 years. Hence, keeping in view the aforementioned mitigating circumstances, I feel that the ends of Justice shall be secured if his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him and fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence underSection 279, I.P.C. and Rs. 1,500/- for the offence Under Section 304A I.P.C. are imposed.
12. In the result, this revision petition is partly allowed and the conviction of the petitioner for the offences Under Sections 279 and 304A. I.P.C. is maintained. However, his sentence for imprisonment is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence Under Section 279, I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 1500/- for the offence Under Section 304A, I.P.C. arc imposed on him. In default of payment of fine the petitioner shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and two months for the offences Under Sections 279 and 304A, I.P.C. respectively. The fine so recovered shall be paid to the widow of deceased Chatar singh s/o Shri Hindu Singh Rajpoot r/o Barmer Aagore. The Jailor, District Jail, Banner be informed aaccordingly.