1 S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETIION NO. 231/1994 Shri Somji Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 18.11.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Mahendra Trivedi, for the petitioner/s. Mr. A.R. Nikub, Public Prosecutor. ... By the judgment dated 26.5.1994 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara while rejecting the appeal preferred by the accused petitioner confirmed his conviction made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara vide order dated 5.8.1993 for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara while convicting the accused petitioner for the offences aforesaid sentenced him to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of RS.200/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC and fine of Rs. 150/- for the offences punishable under Section 279 IPC and further a fine of Rs.150/- for the offence punishable Under Section 337 IPC and to undergo further a month's rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of the fine imposed. While challenging the judgments impugned the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no adequate evidence is available on record to establish the offences for that the accused 2 petitioner is convicted. On examination of record and the judgments impugned it is apparent that PW-3 Vijay Lal and PW-4 Fakira in quite unambiguous terms stated that Somji was quite rash and negligent in driving the Tractor and consequent to that accident occurred and Kamji died. PW-5 Limba also supported the prosecution story. As such, I do not find any error in recording conviction by the trial court that may warrant interference of this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. On the question of sentence it is urged by learned counsel for the accused petitioner that the incident in question is dated 2.4.1988 and now after a lapse of more than 22 years remission of the accused to undergo remaining sentence shall be highly arbitrary. It is also pointed out from record that the accused petitioner has already undergone sentence for 40 days. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to modify the sentence while affirming the conviction. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the accused-petitioner as made by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is maintained, however, the sentence awarded is reduced from the term of six months to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '