IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1014 of 2009 DINESH KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Puspendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. M.P. Mehta APP ----------- 3 13.07.2009 Heard. Admit. RULE is confined to question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives notice. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being heard and finally disposed of. The petitioner has been found and held guilty under sections 304A and 279 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and six (06) months respectively. The sentences have, however, been directed to run concurrently. The date of occurrence is 2.5.2001. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was driving the vehicle negligently and rashly as a result whereof, he run over a 10 year old girl who had taken the road to reach the market. The prosecution examined altogether 06 witnesses in support of the prosecution case. On consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted them as noted above. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 53 of 2006/11/2008 which was heard and rejected by the 2 learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court VI, Sitamarhi. The appellate court reappraised the evidence on record in the light of submission(s) advanced by the parties and came to the conclusion that there was absolutely no infirmity in the judgment appealed against meriting interference. Thus, the appellate court confirmed the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence(s) inflicted thereunder.. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is the only bread earner in the family. It is further contended that he had to undergo arduous trial and appeal right from May, 2001. The mental agony and hardship in fighting litigation is a relevant aspect which should have been taken into consideration by the Court while inflicting sentence. It is stated that the petitioner was not earlier found to have committed any offence. In these circumstances, it is contended that the imposition of maximum punishment under section 304A requires consideration. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand supported the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below. Having heard the parties and after going through the materials available on record, the court finds that the following modification in the sentence shall sub-serve the cause of justice: The petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one and a half years under section 304A Indian Penal Code instead of two years as awarded by the courts below. There is no modification in other terms of sentences. 3 With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )