JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 5.7.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar, in Criminal Appeal No. 32/2011; whereby the order of judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sikar, passed in Criminal Case No. 496/2003 on 20.1.2009, had been upheld while dismissing the appeal against the conviction for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C. The sentences awarded by the learned trial Court to the petitioner and affirmed by the learned appellate Court are as under : Under Section 279 I.P.C. - 1 month's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default whereof to further undergo 1 week's simple imprisonment. Under Section 337 I.P.C. - 6 months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,00/-, in default whereof to undergo 1 week's simple imprisonment. Under Section 338 I.P.C. - 1 year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default whereof to undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. Under Section 304A I.P.C. - 2 year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 22,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment. All sentences to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that complainant Dhanraj submitted a written report at Police Station Losal to the effect that at about 8.30 P.M. when the complainant was standing near Dhani Ka Jhala and talking to Tikku Ram and Govind Ram, he saw his cousin Bhagwana Ram and nephew Bega Ram coming from field in their bullock-cart, along with their crop, going towards Losal Dhani. When they were near bus-stand, jeep No. RJ 23 T 0189 being driven rashly and negligently, came from behind and hit their bullock-cart, which was on its correct side. Resultantly, his cousin Bhagwana Ram died at the spot and nephew Bega Ram got seriously injured and the bullock-cart got damaged and the crop got scattered. According to the F.I.R., the jeep was so rash that after hitting the bullock-cart, it turned around. Accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of jeep. 3. On this report, Case No. 105/2003 was registered for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. After usual investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 37 documents. 3. On this report, Case No. 105/2003 was registered for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. After usual investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 37 documents. The petitioner was examined tinder Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he alleged false implication, but did not lead any defence evidence. 5. Learned trial Court on the basis of statements of eye-witnesses, corroborated with the circumstantial evidence, and the medical officer's report, arrived at a finding of conviction of the petitioner and sentenced him as mentioned herein above, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court in appeal filed by the accused-petitioner. 6. The accused-petitioner had, by way of this revision petition, assailed both the orders passed by the Courts below. However, during arguments, learned counsel for petitioner restricted his arguments only to the extent of sentence awarded by the trial Court and upheld by the First Appellate Court. Without assailing the conviction, he prayed for modification of the sentence on the ground that the incident pertains to the year 2003 and it was his first offence and that he has already suffered incarceration of 2 months and 7 days. 7. Placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi, (1973) 2 SCC 203 , it was submitted that he is ready to compensate the family of deceased. The Apex Court in Jagdish Chander's case (supra), was also dealing with the sentence of a convict having been convicted for offence punishable under Section 304-A LP.C., and where the incident was almost eight years old, inter alia, held : "... To send the appellant back to jail to serve the sentence of 6 months after 8 years seems to us to be highly unjust for the kind of offence which has been upheld against him by the three Courts below. It is unlikely to have any reformatory effect on him. Harassment of a criminal trial for more than 8 years and the expense which he must have incurred, in our opinion, can legitimately be taken into account when considering the question of sentence to be imposed by this Court at this point of time. It is unlikely to have any reformatory effect on him. Harassment of a criminal trial for more than 8 years and the expense which he must have incurred, in our opinion, can legitimately be taken into account when considering the question of sentence to be imposed by this Court at this point of time. The appellant is stated to have served out only three weeks of imprisonment but on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances of the case we think it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but to increase the sentence of fine from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/-...." 8. I have gone through the above quoted judicial pronouncement of Apex Court. While dealing with a matter under Section 304A I.P.C., wherein the accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, and had only suffered 3 weeks imprisonment, Apex Court keeping in view other factors, reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone. 9. In this background, keeping in view the period of incarceration already suffered by the petitioner, and the fact that the incident occurred in 2003, in my considered view, the interest of justice will be served if the petitioner is sentenced to period of sentence already suffered by him. However, the sentence of fine, should, in my opinion, be modified and is hereby enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited within three months. The fine so deposited shall be paid to the wife of deceased, and in case of non compliance of this order, the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.Ordered accordingly.The revision petition stands disposed. The application seeking suspension of sentence, also stands dismissed.Revision disposed of. *******