JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J. (Oral) - The petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 18.5.2005, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kaithal, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 08/10.05.2002, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. and further convicting him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A I.P.C. 2. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 14.6.1997 at 9.30 A.M., the accused/petitioner (herein referred as the petitioner) while driving Bus bearing Registration No.PB-13D-9541 rashly and negligently struck against the Scooter No.PB-42-0123, as a result of which Surender Pal son of Satpal, his wife Kiran and their son Sorabh fell down. Surender Pal and his wife received multiple injuries whereas Sorabh received head injury and became unconscious and later on died. The Scooter was also damaged. Chaman Lal had witnessed the occurrence. On the aforesaid statement of Surinder Pal, injured, the case was registered and investigated. The injured were got medico legally examined. The post-mortem on the body of Sorabh was conducted on 16.6.1997 and the petitioner/accused was arrested on 18.6.1997. The driving license of the accused was recovered from the offending bus which was taken into possession on the same day. The accused was charged for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution led evidence. Thereafter, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 3. Ultimately, he was convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. 4. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. 5. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence led by the prosecution appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Kiran has duly identified the accused. The offending Bus was taken into possession at the spot and the driving license belonging to the accused was recovered. The accused also took superdari of the offending bus. Therefore, no iota of doubt remains in the mind of the Court to hold that it was the accused who was driving the offending Bus at the time of occurrence. The offending Bus was taken into possession at the spot and the driving license belonging to the accused was recovered. The accused also took superdari of the offending bus. Therefore, no iota of doubt remains in the mind of the Court to hold that it was the accused who was driving the offending Bus at the time of occurrence. Both the Courts below have also consistently observed that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent act of the accused. 6. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity was found or detected in the conduct of trial or procedure, which may result into miscarriage or failure of justice, therefore, the findings returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. 7. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1997. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony due to protracted proceedings for such a long time in various Courts. He has already undergone more than 2 months of the substantive sentence. Under these peculiar circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to reduce the sentence to some extent. 8. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence, which is reduced to six months without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, for compliance. —————————