1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Crl. Revision Petition No.245/2010 (Padam Vs. State of Rajasthan) Date of Order : 16.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Azad Ahmed, for the petitioner. Mr.Laxman Meena, PP. By the Court: This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 20.01.2009 so as the order of the Appellate Court dated 22.02.2010. It is stated that petitioner was tried for an offence under Sections 304A, 279, 201 of IPC and Section 132, 134 read with Section 177 of Motor Vehicle Act. The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sections 279, 304A read with Section 134 and 177 of Motor Vehicle Act. On filing appeal, the Appellate Court maintained the conviction under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, however, acquitted the petitioner for an offence under Section 134/177 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The sentence of the petitioner was, however maintained, thus aggrieved by that, this revision petition has been filed. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has already served nearly one month's imprisonment by now and looking to the facts of this case, petitioner was not at all negligent in driving the vehicle so as to cause the 2 offence under Sections 279, 304A of IPC. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, however, convicted the petitioner. The orders under challenge need to be interfered by this Court. It is alternatively prayed that looking to the facts of this case, the sentence may be reduced appropriately. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that there exists finding of facts by two Courts below and thereby, there exists sufficient evidence to convict the petitioner. The Appellate Court has carefully gone through the grounds raised before it and thereby, while maintaining the conviction for an offence under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, the petitioner was acquitted for an offence under Sections 134/177 of Motor Vehicle Act. No ground is made out to interfere in the order of conviction. The sentence is only of six months, thus this Court may not interfere therein. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration on the arguments. From the perusal of the finding recorded by the trial Court as well as by the Appellate court, it is proved that petitioner committed offence under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. The Appellate Court has examined all the grounds minutely and came to the conclusion that offence under Section 134/177 of Motor Vehicle Act is not made out. I do not find any error in the finding so recorded therein. 3 In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere in the order of conviction of the petitioner for an offence under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and accordingly, the order of conviction is confirmed. Now, the issue remains of sentence. From the perusal of the facts available on record, I am of the view that sentence needs to be reduced to three months simple imprisonment while maintaining other part of sentence. This is looking to the facts available on record as to how the accident took place. In view of the aforesaid, the order under challenge is modified to the extent of imposing sentence of six months imprisonment and thereby, it is reduced to three months' simple imprisonment. The sentence of fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment to undergo for 15 days simple imprisonment is, however, maintained. The criminal revision petition is partly allowed accordingly. (M.N. BHANDARI),J. Preety Item NO.S-14