1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 306 OF 2009 Govind S/o Eknath Kanade ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and another ..RESPONDENTS Mr. P.S. Pawar, Advocate for applicant. Mr. T.S. Lodhe, A.P.P. for respondent no.1. Mr. R.P. Bhumkar, advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 18th October, 2010 PER COURT : 1. This revision is filed against the concurrent findings of Courts below that the applicant had committed offence under Sections 304-A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also proved that he had also committed offence under Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The prosecution has proved the fact of accident which occurred on 18th May, 2006 at about 8 a.m. and the applicant who was driving the tractor and trolley had kept tractor and trolley parked near a public road. The engine of the tractor was still in running condition. The prosecution further proved that the workers were loading the trolley of the tractor with soil. The victim was girl child about two years old. She was playing near the tractor. The tractor suddenly started moving and the applicant failed to control the same. It ran over the victim, killing her on the next day. 2 2. The victim's parents are before the Court. The mother of the victim is already party to the revision. The applicant and the mother of victim, seems to have settled the dispute out of the Court. The mother of victim admitted having received Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) as a part of compensation from the applicant (She has already received substantial amount in her Motor Accident Claims Petition No.384/2006). In view of this, the parties are requesting the Court, not only to record this settlement but to reduce the substantive sentence awarded to the applicant, to which period he has already under gone. The parties have placed on record the settlement and same is taken on record and marked as `A' for identification. In view of the facts above, I am convinced that the compromise has taken place between the parties. I am of the view that the applicant can be shown leniency. In view of this the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under Section 304-A and 388 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act are maintained. Even, the sentences of fine awarded to the applicant under the above mentioned three offences are also maintained. The substantive sentence awarded to the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code are reduced to the period which he has already undergone (The applicant has undergone imprisonment for a period of 22 days during the pendency of this case). (A.V. NIRGUDE) JUDGE gas/crira306.09