JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.7.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalore Camp Bhinmal, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the petitioner's conviction for offence under Sections 304 (A), 279 Indian Penal Code, but has reduced his sentence from one year to six months of simple imprisonment for offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code, and from three months to one and half months for offence under Section 279 Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 4.9.1990, one Ratan Lal, A.S.I., Police Station, Sanchor recorded Joita's statement (Ex.P-2). In his statement, Joita claimed that in the morning he had gone from village Seveda to Savidhar Mafaji. On his way back, at the Raniwara bus stand, he met Hardan, whose in-laws house is situated in village Seveda. Hardan also had to go to village, Seveda. Around 5 P.M., Sona Ram, the petitioner, was driving his taxi bearing registration No. R.R.T. 4787 from Raniwara to Sanchor. When they asked Sona Ram, he told them to sit on the roof of the taxi. Subsequently, Joita, and Hardan, and two or three other passengers sat on the roof of the taxi. According to Joita, Sona Ram was driving the jeep negligently and at a great speed. As soon as the jeep reached in front of the Police Station, Savidhar Mafji, due to the presence of a pot hole in the road, Sona Ram suddenly hit the brake. Consequently, Hardan fell from the jeep. He was immediately rushed to Sanchor Hospital. On the basis of the said statement, a formal F.I.R. was chalked out for offences under Sections 279 and 337 Indian Penal Code However, during the course of his treatment, Hardan expired. Therefore, the charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 304-A Indian Penal Code and for offences under Section 66 read with Section 192 of Motor Vehicle Act. 3. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and submitted eleven documents. The defence, in turn, submitted only two documents, but did not examine any witness. 3. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and submitted eleven documents. The defence, in turn, submitted only two documents, but did not examine any witness. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 6.9.1994, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A Indian Penal Code and under Sections 66/192 of M.V. Act and imposed a fine of Rs. 200/-. 4. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.9.1994, he filed an appeal before the learned Judge. However, vide judgment dated 13.7.1995, the learned Judge partly allowed the appeal. The learned Judge upheld the conviction, but reduced the sentence, as aforementioned. Hence, this petition before this Court. 5. Mr. Paramveer Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has frankly conceded that he does not want to argue on the merit of the case. However, according to him since the petitioner cannot be blamed entirely for the accident, as the deceased was sitting on roof of the taxi, therefore, this is a case of contributory negligence. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the sentence should be reduced from six months to the period undergone by the petitioner, i.e. for a period of ten days. Secondly, that although the petitioner had been on bail during trial, although he has been on bail since the filing of this petition in the year 1995, the petitioner has been leading a peaceful life as a law-abiding citizen; he has not created any difficulties in the society at large. Therefore, according to the learned counsel no fruitful purpose would be served in incarcerating the petitioner after a lapse of almost eighteen years. 6. On the other hand, the leaned Public Prosecutor has claimed that it is a case of death on account of negligence; therefore, the sentence should not be reduced by this Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned judgment, and examined the record. 8. Retribution and deterrence are not the only basis for punishing an accused person. If the aim of the punishment were retribution and deterrence, it should have been inflicted immediately after the conviction was recorded with the lapse of time, both deterrence and retribution lose their impact. 8. Retribution and deterrence are not the only basis for punishing an accused person. If the aim of the punishment were retribution and deterrence, it should have been inflicted immediately after the conviction was recorded with the lapse of time, both deterrence and retribution lose their impact. Moreover, the Court would have to consider the issue whether inflicting of the punishment would reform the accused persons or not. In case, the punishment and the consequent incarceration would not reform the accused, then the punishment and incarceration would be a futile exercise. 9. Admittedly, the accident had taken place in the year 19.94, admittedly the petitioner was convicted vide judgment 6.9.1994, admittedly from the year 1990-1994 the petitioner was on bail, even after the appeal was filed, from 1995 the petitioner has been on bail till present. Since there are no other cases which have been registered against the petitioner, obviously, he is leading his life as a law-abiding citizen. Thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by incarcerating the petitioner for a period of six months, since he is already living as a law- abiding citizen. In fact, there is no need to reform him. As far as being punished for the alleged offence committed by him, admittedly the petitioner was incarcerated for a period of ten days. 10. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this Court is inclined to accept this petition and to reduce the sentence of the petitioner from six months to as undergone. However, this Court is of the opinion that the fine imposed upon the petitioner should be increased from Rs. 200/- to 5,000/-. Amount so paid by the petitioner should be paid to the legal heirs of Hardan. The petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount with the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court is directed to locate the legal heirs of Hardan and to ensure that the fine is paid to them within a period of one month from the date of depositing of the fine amount.With these observations, this revision petition is partly allowed.Revision partly allowed. *******