JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.PC. is directed against the order dated 21.1.1992 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar in criminal appeal No. 31/89, whereby the lower appellate court confirmed the conviction recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar in criminal case No. 52/85 for the offence under section 304-A I.PC. However, sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial court was reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment of lower appellate court, the accused petitioner has preferred this revision petition. The petitioner was tried for the offence under section 304- A I.PC. on the allegation that on 30.4.1984, he caused the death of Smt. Chena while driving tractor No. PUK- 891 rashly and negligently at a great speed. It was alleged by the prosecution that the tractor driver was driving the tractor on the wrong side of the road and hit Smt. Chena while she was carrying water pot on her head. Due to hitting of the tractor by rash and negligent act of the petitioner, Smt. Chena died on the spot. Prosecution has proved its case from the statement of PW. 1 Ram Karan, PW. 2 Sohan Lal, PW. 3 Devi Lal, PW. 4 Dhanpat, PW. 5 Bhadar Ram, PW. 6 Dula Ram, PW. 7 Phoolchand, PW. 8 Hukam Singh, PW. 9 Ramjas and PW. 10 Moti Ram. Accused petitioner made statement under section 313 Cr.PC. and denied the allegations levelled against him. However, on appreciation of the evidence of independent eye- witnesses of the occurrence, the trial court reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and held the petitioner guilty of the offence under section 304- A I.P.C. On appeal, the lower appellate court reappreciated the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution and by a well reasoned judgment, reached to the conclusion that prosecution has established the guilt of the accused- petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner was affirmed by the lower appellate court. However, sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment was reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record and the order of the trial Court as well as of the appellate court. 4. However, sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment was reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record and the order of the trial Court as well as of the appellate court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly not challenged the concurrent finding of fact of both the court below as well as the petitioners conviction for offence under section 304- A I.PC., which stands well proved beyond any doubt from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that occurrence is of 1984 and the petitioner being a young person, has faced the trial as well as litigating for appeal and the present revision petition for along period of more than 17 years. He contended that appellant has already undergone imprisonment of 21 days out of the six months. Therefore he submits that ends of the justice would be met if the substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has seriously contested that there is no mitigating circumstance in the instant case for reducing the sentence. The allegation against the petitioner is that by his rash and negligent act, he caused death of a young lady and as such the quantum of punishment imposed on him by the lower appellate court cannot be said to be excessive. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties. The petitioner has been facing the trial since 1984. He underwent the imprisonment for a period of 21 days. The petitioner has undergone mental agony, harassment and financial burden in facing the investigation, trial of the case and in prosecuting this revision. The accident took place while deceased Smt. Chena was crossing the road. However, the factum of rash and negligent act of the petitioner has fully been established and, therefore, the fact that deceased was crossing the road, Cannot be a mitigating circumstance. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone 21 days imprisonment and faced trial, appeal and revision and he has already been financially burdended, ends of justice would be secured if the sentence is reduced to already undergone by him and fine is enhanced from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 200/- to Rs. 15,000/- which shall be paid to Dula Ram son of Sajan Ram, husband of deceased as compensation. 6. In the result, this revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 304- A I.PC. is maintained but the sentence of imprisonment passed by lower appellate court is reduced to the sentence for the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. However, fine imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- . In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months. Petitioner is granted three months time to deposit the fine. The fine so recovered shall be paid to Dula Ram husband of deceased Smt. Chena as compensation.Revision Partly allowed. *******