JUDGMENT D.D. SINHA, J.:---Heard Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the applicant, and Shri Fulzele, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2.The present criminal revision application is preferred by the applicant/accused only in respect of order of sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge, Buldhana by judgment dated 20-1-1996 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1994. The applicant was prosecuted and convicted for the offences punishable under sections 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code by the trial Court. For the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, the applicant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of rupees one thousand, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one more month and for the offence punishable under section 337 of Indian Penal Code, the applicant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and pay fine of rupees five hundred, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one more month. The applicant being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 3-10-1994 passed by the trial Court, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1994 before Sessions Judge, Buldhana. The said appeal was also preferred only on the point of sentence and applicant did not challenge conviction awarded by the trial Court in respect of offences punishable under the above referred sections of Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge after taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances, confirmed conviction of the applicant and reduced the sentence awarded by the trial Court. The sentence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code was reduced to three months by the lower Appellate Court. However, sentence of fine of rupees one thousand was maintained. Since applicant had already undergone sentence awarded by the trial Court for the offence punishable under section 337 of Indian Penal Code, there was no occasion for the lower Appellate Court to consider the same. 3.The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is a young boy of 24 years and at the relevant time he was working as a Driver. The applicant is the only earning member in his family and offence in question is the first offence committed by the applicant/accused. The learned Counsel further contended that accused is not involved in any other criminal offence and has a clean record. The applicant is the only earning member in his family and offence in question is the first offence committed by the applicant/accused. The learned Counsel further contended that accused is not involved in any other criminal offence and has a clean record. It is also contended that the accused has already suffered imprisonment for one month and four days. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that leniency may be shown to the applicant/accused and sentence may be reduced to sentence already undergone. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in (Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (Union Territory of Delhi))1, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 892. 4.Shri Fulzele, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State, submitted that the lower Appellate Court has already shown leniency and reduced the sentence awarded by the trial Court and, therefore, opposed the request made by the learned Counsel for the applicant for leniency. 5.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties and also perused the judgment of the lower Appellate Court as well as evidence adduced by the prosecution in the instant case. It is, however, true that prosecution has proved callousness and negligence on the part of the applicant while driving the Tractor at the relevant time. The severity of the sentence depends upon all the facts and circumstances of the case. The lower Appellate Court taking into consideration the situation has reduced the sentence awarded by the trial Court. The facts of applicant being a young boy of 24 years of age, this being his first offence and he being the only bread earner of the family, in my opinion, will have to be given some weight in considering quantum of sentence awarded by the lower Appellate Court as well as peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred judgment is also applicable in the instant case. The Apex Court has observed thus--- "We have gone through the evidence in this case and we are satisfied that there is no reason to interfere with the conviction recorded against the appellant for the offence under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The Apex Court has observed thus--- "We have gone through the evidence in this case and we are satisfied that there is no reason to interfere with the conviction recorded against the appellant for the offence under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence which has been imposed on the appellant has been progressively reduced and ultimately the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. We think that having regard to the special facts and circumstances of the present case, it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to one month and in lieu thereof, the fine is enhanced to Rs. 1,000/-." Considering totality of the circumstances involved in this case and also in the interest of justice, sentence awarded by the lower Appellate Court for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code is reduced to sentence already undergone and in lieu thereof fine is enhanced to rupees five thousand. The revision is partly allowed and applicant/accused set at liberty if not required in any other case. Revision application partly allowed. -----