JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 8.12.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 56/1995-Madroop Ram v. State , whereby he dismissed the said appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.10.1995 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur in case No. 94/1994 State v. Madroop Ram. By the said order, the learned trial Court convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as under:Sentenced them Deva Ram as under: ACCUSED OFFENCE PUNISHMENT Deva Ram Under Section 279 Indian Penal Code S.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's S.I. Under Section 337 Indian Penal Code S.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's S.I. Under Section 338 Indian Penal Code S.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two month's S.I. Under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code S.I. for two years' and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo four month's S.I. 2. According to the prosecution case, on 5.3.1994 at about 10.15 A.M., the complainant, Shyam Lal Arora, lodged a complaint that he was informed telephonically by an unknown person that in-front of M/s. Mahindra Motors, a truck dashed his cousin, who was coming to M/s. J.K. Nursing Home with his elder brother Rajesh, and on account of which, vikas died on the spot and elder brother Rajesh suffered various injuries. The offending vehicle truck bearing No. RMQ-5933 and the scooter bearing No. RNN-4451 on which both brothers were going to M/s. J.K. Nursing Home, were also lying there. On asking from his cousin Rajesh, he told that the driver of the truck, who was driving the truck rashly and negligently, dashed the scooter, on account of which both brothers fell down and the rear wheel of the offending vehicle truck was passed over the head of the deceased Vikas, thus, lie died on the spot. On asking from his cousin Rajesh, he told that the driver of the truck, who was driving the truck rashly and negligently, dashed the scooter, on account of which both brothers fell down and the rear wheel of the offending vehicle truck was passed over the head of the deceased Vikas, thus, lie died on the spot. On the complaint so lodged, a case No. 83/1994 was registered at Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur. After completing investigation, the S.H.O. Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur filed a challan against the accused Madroop Ram for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A Indian Penal Code The trial Court after recording the evidence adduced by the prosecution, held the accused-petitioner driver of said truck guilty for rash and negligent driving and on the basis of the statements made by various eye-witnesses, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Against the judgment of trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Court, which also failed. Hence, this revision petition before this Court under Section 397 Criminal Procedure Code.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.R. Choudhary, vehemently urged that the Courts below have erred in convicting the accused petitioner as the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the truck so also the driver of the scooter, Rajesh Arora. He has also submitted that the injured Rajesh Arora was driving the scooter in the mid of the road and due to slip of the scooter, the said accident occurred. In the alternative, he submitted that if this Court is of the opinion that the conviction is justified and deserves to be maintained in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner maybe reduced to the period already undergone by him which is stated to be approx 13 days. He further submitted that the incident relates to the very long past period i.e. about 19 years back and the accused petitioner is now over 65 years of age.4. On the other hand, Mr. He further submitted that the incident relates to the very long past period i.e. about 19 years back and the accused petitioner is now over 65 years of age.4. On the other hand, Mr. K.R. Bishnoi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State controverts the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits on the strength of the following judgments that there is no occasion either to interfere with the concurrent findings and the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner by the Courts below nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case particularly, which resulted in the death of one Lal Chand. He placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Amar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 Cr.L.J. 1 , wherein this Court has held that when a precious human life is lost by a rash and negligent driving, no compassion can be shown. Undue sympathy in such cases will not only lead to miscarriage of justice but will also undermine the confidence of the public in the efficacy of the criminal judicial system. He also placed reliance on the case of Dilip S/o Ramchandra Umare v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 Cr.L.M. (Bombay) 721 , wherein the Bombay High Court held that the accused was guilty of offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code did not warrant any interference. Similarly, he placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Bikasani Satyanarayan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1996 Cr.L.J. 1435 , wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that in revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Criminal Procedure Code re-appreciation of evidence was not possible and the mere fact that some of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile is not a ground to throw out the case and the finding of the Court was not interfered with.5. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to support his case with the help of the judgment given in the case of Suresh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 (Vol. 15) RCC 356 , wherein this Court was dealing with a case where the foot brakes of the jeep failed, but the hand brakes were in order. The Court held that on account of failure of such brakes, the incident could not be avoided, therefore, the driver could not be held responsible for rash and negligent driving. 15) RCC 356 , wherein this Court was dealing with a case where the foot brakes of the jeep failed, but the hand brakes were in order. The Court held that on account of failure of such brakes, the incident could not be avoided, therefore, the driver could not be held responsible for rash and negligent driving. He also placed reliance upon the judgment given in the case of A.P. Raju v. State of Orissa, 1995 SCC (Cri.) 675 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the conviction under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code held that where the occurrence took place about 15 years ago and the appellant remained on bail for the last more than 8 years, the appellant was directed to be released on Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code on probation of good conduct, be of good behaviour and to keep peace for a period of one year. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.R. Choudhary also placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Shri Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2006(2) RDD 1248 (Raj.) , wherein this Court was dealing with a case where the occurrence took place about 25 years ago and the Courts below, on the appreciation of evidence have arrived at the finding of rash and negligent driving by the accused petitioner as a result of which the said trolley attached to the tractor turned, over and various people suffered injuries and one died. This Court while upholding the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused petitioner and upheld by the appellate Court held that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for about six months and no useful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail, however, the consolidated amount of fine was enhanced from the Rs. 500/- to Rs. 15,000/-6. Having heard the learned counsel forth parties and perusing the judgment of the Courts below and in view of the over all facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused petitioner by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court, is not required to be interfered. Having heard the learned counsel forth parties and perusing the judgment of the Courts below and in view of the over all facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused petitioner by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court, is not required to be interfered. The Courts below, on the appreciation of evidence rightly arrived all the finding of rash and negligent driving by the accused petitioner as a result of which the offending vehicle truck dashed two read brother Rajsesh and Vikas and on account of which Vikas died and Rajesh suffered various injuries.7. On the period of sentence, however, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.R. Choudhary, that the incident is very old now and the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for about 13 days, no useful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail, this Court"is inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him subject to condition that the amount of fine for the offence for which the accused petitioner has been convicted by the Court below is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The accused petitioner will pay the said fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in lump sum within a period of six weeks from today. Upon failure to pay the said amount of fine, the accused petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The said amount of fine in terms of this judgment if paid within six weeks shall be paid to the father or his legal heirs of the deceased Vikas under the supervision of S.D.O. concerned.8. With these observations, the criminal revision petition is disposed ofRevision partly allowed. *******