JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 27-11-92 passed by the learned Addl Sessions Judge, Phalodi in Cr. Appeal No. 11/93 (49 of 1992) whereby ate dismissed petitioner's appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. C.J.M , Phalodi vide his judgment dated 27-11-1992 in Cr. Original Case No. 137/ 92 (73 of 1986), whereby the petitioner was found guilty for the offences under sections 279 and 304A Indian Penal Code an was sentenced to three month's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, one month's further S.I. under the first count and to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further undergo two months' S.I. under the record count. 2. The contention of Mr. Khatri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the alleged occurrence took place on 4-2-1986 and the petitioner is under detention since 5-8-1993. According to him, the petitioner is a poor person, who has suffered consistently mental agony and physical harassment for last more than seven years during the investigation and trial of this case as also in the appellate Court. He has further contended that the descendant of the deceased Bachhu Khan have already received compensation amounting to Rs. 1,97,000/- from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and that in such circumstances, the sentence of the petitioner should be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 3. On the other hand, learned P.P. opposes the revision petition on the ground that the sentenced passed by the learned lower Courts are neither excessive nor exorbitant keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. 5. In Mangtu Khan v. State, 1989 RCC 270 , the accused was found guilty for the offence under sections 304A and 279 Indian Penal Code The incident bad occurred seven years back and the accused had already undergone imprisonment for a period of about twenty days. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case; this Court reduced his substantive sentence to the period already undergone and directed the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. 6. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case; this Court reduced his substantive sentence to the period already undergone and directed the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. 6. Similarly in Prakash Raj v. State, 1987 WLN (UC) 439 , the accused was convicted for the offences under sections 304A and 279 Indian Penal Code The incident had occurred in the year 1976 and the accused had remained in custody for ten days This court reduced the substantive sentence of accused to the period of his detention with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner has been facing investigation and trial for the last more than seven years. The accused is an old man of about 30 years of age and he is the only bread earner of his family. Therefore, keeping in view all these mitigating circumstances, I feel that interest of justice will be secured if his substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and fine imposed on him is enhanced from Rs 1000/. to Rs. 2000/- for the offence under section 304A Indian Penal Code. 8. In the result, this revision petition is partly allowed and while confirming the conviction of the petitioner Lakharam passed by the learned lower Courts, I modify the substantive sentence passed against him and sentence him Os, 279 and 304A Indian Penal Code for the period already undergone by him. However, the fine imposed on him for the offence under section 279 Indian Penal Code is maintained while the fine imposed on him for the offence under section 304A Indian Penal Code is enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs 2000/- and in default of payment of fine he will further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and two months respectively for the offences under sections 279 and 3O4A Indian Penal Code.Revision Party allowed. *******