Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 352 (RAJ)

Kamla Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

2013-02-11

BANWARI LAL SHARMA

body2013
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—By this revision, the petitioner-convict Kamla Prasad is challenging the judgment and order dated 23.7.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur whereby the conviction of the petitioner-convict under Secs. 279 and 304A IPC awarded to him by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vallabh-nagar, District Udaipur vide judgment and order dated 22.6.1993 was affirmed. 2. Briefly, as set up the prosecution case is that on 13.10.1983, at 12.30 PM, written report was submitted by complainant Shri Bhajja S/o Shri Panna Gameti, r/o Wana, addressing to the SHO, PS Kheroda stating that he (Bhajja) with his son Mangu was going on bullock-cart from Wana to Keer Ki Chowki. They were in their side. Suddenly, a bus, which was coming from Chittorgarh side, hit the cart, due to which son of complainant, viz., Mangu and bullock died at the spot. The complainant and the second bullock were thrown away. 3. On the basis of the above report Ex.P/11, FIR No. 65/1983 was registered at P.S. Kheroda for committing offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304 A IPC. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304 A IPC in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Vallabhnagar, on 15.12.1983. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the petitioner. After examining the petitioner (who was accused in the case) under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., opportunity was also given to him to lead defence evidence for which he denied. While examining the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that he was driving his bus cautiously but due to blazing of bullocks, accident took place. 5. After considering the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, the petitioner/accused was found guilty for causing death of Mangilal and bullock of complainant due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing No. UTN 6678 and he was sentenced to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304 A IPC. He was punished by penalty of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. 3,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304 A IPC. He was punished by penalty of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. It was also ordered that after realization of fine, the total amount of penalty be given to the complainant Bhajja S/o Panna Gameti as compensation. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.7.1996, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur, vide which the appeal preferred against the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vallabhnagar was dismissed, this revision petition has been filed praying for setting the judgment and order of sentence dated 22.6.1993 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vallabhnagar (Udaipur) and judgment dated 23.7.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur and acquittal of the petitioner for the offences complained-off. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the courts below tailed to appreciate that the prosecution failed to prove the rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioner so as to hold him guilty under Sec. 279 and 304 A IPC. The prosecution witnesses inter alia stated that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner but failed to prove the decree of rashness and negligence by strong evidence. He further argued that the bullocks were blazed and due to which accident took place. He also submitted that all of sudden, brake-pipe of the bus dama-ged and the brakes of the bus were failed due to which accident took place, as such, the rashness and negligence cannot be attributed to the petitioner. He further submitted that the road was wide enough and the complainant himself was plying the cart in wrong side and he could not control the bullocks and cart, for which the petitioner cannot be held liable. He further submitted that mere carelessness is not sufficient to convict the petitioner as the prosecution is required to prove the mens rea over the guilty mind. 8. He further submitted that mere carelessness is not sufficient to convict the petitioner as the prosecution is required to prove the mens rea over the guilty mind. 8. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident is of 1983, i.e. about 30 years ago and the petitioner is suffering from persistent mental and physical agony since last 30 years, therefore, in case this court also finds guilty, then he may be extended the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments delivered in the cases of Parbhu Dayal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (RLW 1992(2) 303), Suresh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan (1990 WLN (UC) 78), Sohan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (1990 WLN (UC) 65) and Shanker Lal vs. State (RLW 1991(2) 70). 10. Per contra, Ms. Chandralekha, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, submitted that the case is based on the version of eye-witness- complai-nant Bhajja PW-3, who was travelling in the cart at the time of accident was fully supported the prosecution case. She further submitted that the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer at the instance of the eye-witness PW.3 Bhajja makes it clear that the view of the eye-witness was not obstructed at the time of accident. The mechanical inspection report, postmortem reports and the statement of eye-witness and the witnesses, who reached on the site after the accident, proved the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases. Udaipur has rightly dismissed the appeal, which need not be interfered with by this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction for the reason that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of sentence. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions put-forth by them. 12. In this case, the important witness is PW3 Bhajja, who is the complai-nant and father of the deceased. As per his statement, the accident took place in the day hours, i.e. about mid-day. When PW.3 Bhajja, with his son, was going from his village Wana to his well (field), by the cart which was paying by his son Mangilal (deceased), who was sitting on the odhara (front part of the cart) and he was sitting in the cart. As per his statement, the accident took place in the day hours, i.e. about mid-day. When PW.3 Bhajja, with his son, was going from his village Wana to his well (field), by the cart which was paying by his son Mangilal (deceased), who was sitting on the odhara (front part of the cart) and he was sitting in the cart. Suddenly, the bus came and dashed with the cart due to which Bhajja and one bullock fell down in one side while his son with another bullock fell down in another side. He further stated that they were in their side and his son got died at the spot. The bus also turtled in the eastern side after collision. He further stated that Bhanwarlal witnessed it who was coming behind on by-cycle. Thereafter, Bhanwarlal and Heera Nai came first. The bus was being driven by the petitioner Kamla Prasad. 13. Heera Nai was examined as PW.1, who also supported the statement of PW.3 and stated that he was there at the bus-stand Wana in his shop when he heard about the accident. He rushed there by by-cycle and saw that Mangilal Gameti was lying dead and the bullock cart was also lying in damaged condition and the bus was also lying in turtled beside the road. 14. The fact of accident has also been corroborated by the statements of PW2 Daulal, PW4 Devilal and PW5 Ganeshlal, all residents of Wana, who also rushed at the place of accident soon after the accident with PW.1 Heeralal. 15. The passengers of bus PW.8 Anju Kumari and PW.9 Savitri have also proved the factum of accident though they deposed that they were in sleeping condition while traveling in bus, therefore, they cannot say that how the accident took place but PW.8 Anju Kumari also sustained injuries on her right palm, left elbow, knees and shoulder. Similarly, PW.9 Savitri also deposed that she has also suffered injuries on right hand and both knees. The factum of accident has also not been denied by the petitioner-accused Kamla Prasad in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He only disputed that he was driving the bus cautiously and due to blazing of bullocks, the accident took place. 16. Similarly, PW.9 Savitri also deposed that she has also suffered injuries on right hand and both knees. The factum of accident has also not been denied by the petitioner-accused Kamla Prasad in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He only disputed that he was driving the bus cautiously and due to blazing of bullocks, the accident took place. 16. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution is required to prove mens rea for guilty mind and it has to be negated in view of the situation that Section 304A IPC is applied in the cases where there is no intention to cause death. Section 304A IPC is attracted only in such cases where rash and negligent act is the direct cause of death of another person. 17. The only question arises for determination is whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the petitioner, which resulted into the death of Mangilal and one bullock? Both the courts below concurrently gave the finding that the petitioner was rash and negligent while driving the offending vehicle and this finding is under challenge by way of revision petition before this Court. 18. Here, suffice it to mention that PW.3 Bhajja is an eye-witness and he is the author of the report Ex.P/11. He has specifically stated that he was sitting in the cart and was going from his village Wana to well (field) with his son Mangilal. His son Mangilal was plying the cart and was sitting on the front side of the cart. The cart was in their side, i.e. left side of the road. Suddenly, the bus came with rash and negligent manner from front side and hit the cart while coming to wrong side. He further stated that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent and as a result of which his son Mangilal and one bullock died at the spot. When he raised alarm, villagers reached there. 19. PW.7 Bheru Singh, who conducted mechanical examination of the bus No. UTN 6678 has stated that stearing of the bus was in order and foot-brake was not working because the rubber pipe was freshly damaged and the left side of head-light was also freshly damaged and front glasses of both the sides were broken. He proved his mechanical report as Ex.P/13. He proved his mechanical report as Ex.P/13. In cross-examination, he admitted that if the brake-pipe is damaged, then in that case, brakes cannot be applied. 20. PW.6 Dr. Rajmal, who conducted the postmortem of deceased Mangilal has proved the postmortem report Ex.P/7 and stated that the cause of death was multiple injuries causing hemorrhage, shock and asphyxia due to respiratory obstruction. As per postmortem report of Mangilal Ex.P/7, there were 20 ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased Mangilal. similarly, as per the postmortem report of bullock Ex.P/6, which was admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner during trial, the cause of death of bullock was shown as internal hemorrhage and shock. The forth survical vertebra was found fractured and trachea was also found ruptured. The factum of death of bullock and Mangilal due to accident has also not been denied by the petitioner in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 21. So far as failure of brakes due to damage of brake-pipe is concerned, suffice it to say that none of the prosecution witness was suggested that accident took place due to failure of brakes. Further, even in examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner did not say anything about the failure of brakes. Only PW.7, who conducted the mechanical inspection of the bus, suggested that if the brake-pipe is damaged, then brake cannot work. That does not prove that the accident took place due to failure of brakes. Since the bus hit the bullock cart, therefore, it cannot be ruled out that due to collision of bullock cart, the brake-pipe may have damaged, which also took support from the statement of PW-7 Bheru Singh that foot-brakes were not working and the brake-pipe was freshly damaged. Hence, this argument does not help the petitioner that the cause of accident was failure of brakes due to damage of brake-pipe. 22. In Prabhu Dayal case (supra), when the accused found the bullock cart is in-front of him, he tried to apply brakes, but hauz pipe was busted and on account of this, the brakes failed and thereafter the truck was got uncontrolled. As such, in this case, the brakes were failed before the accident. 23. In Suresh Chandra's case (supra), the brakes of the jeep were sudde-nly failed before the accident and the driver could not avoid the accident. 24. As such, in this case, the brakes were failed before the accident. 23. In Suresh Chandra's case (supra), the brakes of the jeep were sudde-nly failed before the accident and the driver could not avoid the accident. 24. But, in the case in hand, there is no such evidence to prove that the brakes of the bus were failed before the accident. As such these judgments do not help the petitioner. 25. So far as blazing of bullocks is concerned, suffice it to say that no suggestion was given to any of the prosecution witnesses, rather PW.3 Bhajja clearly deposed that their bullock cart was going on road in their side. He categorically denied the fact that the bullocks were blazed. Rather, he stated that he often used to go on that road and bullocks never blazed. As such this argument also does not help the petitioner-accused. 26. The involvement of the bus No. UTN 6678 in this case is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is also proved by the statements of the prosecution witnesses as well as the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. From the perusal of the statement of the prosecution witnesses and postmortem reports of deceased Mangilal and bullock, it stands proved that the bus driven by the petitioner had hit the bullock cart when it was moving on the roadside and further that the petitioner was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of Mangilal and a bullock and damaged the bullock cart, which is also proved from the facts that no other vehicle was there at the time of accident and the bus hit from the front side of the bullock cart from the wrong side, whereas the width of the road was 20 ft. and there were foot paths on both the sides of the road, as pr site plan Ex. P/9. 27. The evidence brought by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Special Judge has discussed the prosecution evidence in detail, which does not require repetition and has rightly come to the conclusion that the case against the petitioner stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. 28. At the stage of revision, meticulous examination of the material on record need not be undertaken. The learned Special Judge has discussed the prosecution evidence in detail, which does not require repetition and has rightly come to the conclusion that the case against the petitioner stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. 28. At the stage of revision, meticulous examination of the material on record need not be undertaken. The submissions made before this court were also made before the courts below and have been duly considered in the impugned judgments. 29. In the case of TN Dhakkal vs. James Basnett & Anr. (2001) 10 SCC 419 ). the Apex Court has laid down the principles as to under what circumstances the revisional jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court. The relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:- "7. By virtue of the powers under Section 401 Cr.P.C. the High Court has jurisdiction to examine the proceedings of inferior courts if the necessity for doing so is brought to its notice in any manner. Under Section 397 of Code, the High Court possess general power of superintendence over actions of the courts subordinate to it and that discretionary power; when administered on the judicial side, is termed as the power of "revision." 8. While giving its reasoned judgment in Janta Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhray a Division Bench of this Court speaking through Pandian, J. (as his Lordship then was) dealt with the object of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in the following words: (SCC p. 355, para 130). 130. The object of the revision jurisdiction under Section 401 is to confer power upon superior criminal courts-a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction- in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precaution or appearance harshness of treatment which has resulted, on the one hand, or on the other hand in some undeserved hardship to individuals. The controlling power of the High Court is discretionary and it must be exercised in the interest of justice with regard to all facts and circumstances of each particular case, anxious attention being given to the said and circumstances while vary greatly from case to case. The Bench than went on to say that : SCC p. 355, para 132) 132. The criminal courts are clothed with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. The Bench than went on to say that : SCC p. 355, para 132) 132. The criminal courts are clothed with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such power through unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the court exist. The power possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on second principles. 9. We are in agreement with the above exposition of law. We are of the opinion that though the High Court has revisional jurisdiction to correct miscarriage of justice, but whether or not, there is justification for the exercise of that discretionary jurisdiction would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The controlling power of the High Court under Section 401 of the Code being discretionary is required to be exercised only in the interest of justice, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of each particular case and not mechanically." 30. The prosecution has been able to prove the manner of accident and the vehicle involved in the accident as well as the person responsible for the rash and negligent driving that caused Mangilal and bullock their life. This court, concurs with the finding of the learned Special Judge that death of Mangilal and one bullock was caused by the petitioner while driving Bus No. UTN 6678 in a rash and negligent manner who failed to drive the bus in a responsible manner and hit the bullock cart, which was going on the roadside. 31. Having carefully perused the impugned judgments and testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as also the record of the case, I am of the view that finding of the guilt of the petitioner do not call for any interference by this Court is exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 32. So far as finding regarding sentence is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court, Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settappa vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1325/2012, decided on 29.8.2012), held as under:- "16. 32. So far as finding regarding sentence is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court, Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settappa vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1325/2012, decided on 29.8.2012), held as under:- "16. In State of Karnataka vs. Krishna alias Raju (1987) 1 SCC 538 ), while dealing with the concept of adequate punishment in relation to an offence under Section 304-A of the IPC, the Court stated that considerations of 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 justice dispensation system. It need be hardly pointed out that the imposition of a sentence of fine of Rs. 250 on the driver of a Motor Vehicles for an offence under Section 304-A of the IPC and that too without any extenuating or mitigating circumstances is bound to shock the conscience of any one and will unmistakably leave the impression that the trial was a mockery of justice. Thereafter, this court enhanced the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000 and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 17. In Sevaka Perumal and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1991) 3 SCC 471 ), it has been emphasized that undue sympathy resulting in imposition of inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system and undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. 18. In Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat (1994) 4 SCC 353 ), the Court, adverting to the new challenges of sentencing, opined that the courts are constantly faced with the situation where they are required to answer to new challenges and mould the sentencing system to meet those challenges. Protection of society and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law and that is required to be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. 20. In Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82 ), this Court expressed thus: "Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the PO Act. While considering the quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence." Thereafter, the Court proceeded to highlight what is expected of a professional driver: "A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly, that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape from jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles." 20. In State of Karnataka vs. Sharanappa Basanagouda Aregoudar (2002) 3 SCC 738 , it has been ruled that if the accused are found guilty of rash and negligent driving, courts have to be on ground to ensure that they do not escape the clutches of law very lightly. The sentence imposed by the courts should have different effect on potential wrong-doers and it should commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. Of course, the courts are given discretion in the matter of sen-tence to take stock of the wide and varying range of facts that might be relevant for fixing the quantum of sentence, but the discretion shall be exercised with due regard to the larger interest of the society and it is needless to add that passing of sentence on the offender is probably the most public face of the criminal justice system. 21. In State of M.P. vs. Saleem alias Chamaru and Anr. 21. In State of M.P. vs. Saleem alias Chamaru and Anr. (2005) 5 SCC 554 ), it has been ruled that the object should be to protect society and the avowed object of law is achieved by imposing appropriate sentence to deter the criminal. It is expected that the courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. 22. Yet again in B. Nagabhushanam vs. State of Karnataka (2008) 5 SCC 730 , the court, taking note of the fact that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently, opined that six month's simple imprisonment and a direction the appellant to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for commission of the offence punishable under Section 304A and simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to be shocking. 23. Recently, in State of Punjab vs. Balwinder Singh and Ors. (2012) 2 SCC 182 , this Court while dealing with the concept of sentencing, has stated thus: "While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death or injury by rash and negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. The persons driving motor vehicles cannot and should not take a chance thinking that even if he is convicted, he would be dealt with leniently by the Court." 24. In Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 ), it has been laid down that sentencing is an important task in relation to criminal justice dispensation system. One of the prime objective of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the same is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of the of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of the of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances. It has been further opined that the principle of proportionality in sentencing a crime-doer is well entrenched in criminal jurisprudence. As a matter of law, the proportion between crime and punishment bears the most relevant influence in the determination of sentencing the crime-doer. The court has to take into consideration all aspects including the social interest and conscience of the society for award of appropriate sentence." 33. From the aforesaid authorities, it is luminous that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed concerns in respect of commission of offence regarding had the nature of the offence and demand of the conscience of the society. That apart, the concern has been to impose adequate sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC. It is worthy to note that in certain circumstances, the mitigating factors have been taken into consideration but the said aspect is dependent on the facts of each case. As the trend of authorities would show, the proficiency in professional driving is emphasized upon and deviation therefrom that results in rash and negligent driving and causes accident has been condemned. In a motor accident, where a number of people sustain injuries and a death occurs, it creates a stir in the society; sense of fear prevails all around. The negligence of one shatters the tranquility of the collective. When such an accident occurs, it has the effect potentiality of making victims in many a layer and creating a concavity in the social fabric. The agony and anguish of the affected persons, both direct and vicarious, can have nightmarish effect. It bears impact on the society and the impact is felt more when accidents take place quite often because of rash driving by drunken, negligent or, for that matter, adventurous drivers who have, in a way, no concern for others. Be it noted, grant of compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is in a different sphere altogether. Be it noted, grant of compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is in a different sphere altogether. Grant of compensation under Section 357(3) with a direction that the same should be paid to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused has been sentenced has a different contour and the same is not to be regarded as a substitute in all circumstances for adequate sentence. 34. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Rattiram & Ors. vs. State of M.P. Through Inspector of Police ( AIR 2012 SCW 1772 ), though in a different context, has stated that criminal jurisprudence, with the passage of time, has laid emphasis on victimology which fundamentally is a perception of a trial from the view point of the criminal as well as the victim. Both the viewed in the social context. The view of the victim is given due regard and respect in certain countries. It is the duty of the court to see that the victim's right is protected. 35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held, "W may note with profit that an appropriate punishment words as an eye-opener for the persons who are not careful while driving vehicles on the road and exhibit a careless attitude possibly harbouring the notion that they would be shown indulgence or lives of others are like files to the wanton boys.' They totally forget that the lives of many are in their hands, and the sublimity of safety of a human being is given an indecent burial by their rash and negligent act." 36. Hence, in view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to be extended the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. 37. In the matter of Puttaswamy vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. (2009(1) WLC (SC) (Cri.) 623), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter where the accused person was convicted for committing offence punishable under Secs. 279 and 304 A IPC, reduced the sentence to that already undergone and enhanced the fine from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-, where the accused caused death of a 7 years old girl on account of his rash and negligent driving tractor. 38. 279 and 304 A IPC, reduced the sentence to that already undergone and enhanced the fine from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-, where the accused caused death of a 7 years old girl on account of his rash and negligent driving tractor. 38. In the present case, due to rash and negligent driving of bus by the petitioner, the son of the complainant, viz., Mangilal aged 22 years, died and a bullock also died. The incident took place on 13.10.1983, which is more than 29 years ago and as such undisputedly, the petitioner has undergone a protracted trial for more than 29 years. He has suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Besides that, it has been said that he is the sole earning member of his family. 39. In the matter of B.G. Goswami vs. Delhi Administration ( AIR 1973 SC 1457 ), thee Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the case of a public servant guilty of corruption, who was convicted after long trial of 17 years, observed as under:- "10. As already observed, the Appellant's conviction under Section 161 IPC, was rightly upheld by the High Court and there is no cogent ground made out for our interference with that conviction. The sentence of imprisonment imposed by the High Court for both these offences is one year and this sentence is to run concurrently. The only question which arises is that under Section 5(1)(d), read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 the minimum sentence prescribed is rigorous imprisonment for one year and there must also be imposition of fine. The sentence of imprisonment can be for a lesser period but in that event the court has to assign special reasons which must be recorded in writing. In considering the special reasons the judicial discretion of the court is as wide as the demand of the cause of substantial justice. Now the question of sentence is always a difficult question, requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various considerations which weigh with a judicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum in a given case. In considering the special reasons the judicial discretion of the court is as wide as the demand of the cause of substantial justice. Now the question of sentence is always a difficult question, requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various considerations which weigh with a judicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum in a given case. The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realize that he has committed an act which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining this question. In modern civilized societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentence both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate, thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. In the present case, after weighting the considerations already noticed by us and the fact that to send the Appellant back to jail now after seven years of the agony and harassment of these proceedings when he is also going to lose his job and has to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but increase the sentence of fine from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 400/-. Period of imprisonment in case of default will remain the same." 40. In the above referred case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after taking into account that the appellant of the case had suffered a protracted trial of almost seventeen years, reduced the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him and awarded him imprisonment for a period of less than one year, as prescribed under law, giving the delay as a special reason. 41. In the above referred case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after taking into account that the appellant of the case had suffered a protracted trial of almost seventeen years, reduced the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him and awarded him imprisonment for a period of less than one year, as prescribed under law, giving the delay as a special reason. 41. In the instant case, undisputedly, the petitioner has undergone a protracted trial for more than 29 years and also suffered trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances specially the fact that the petitioner is suffering from the persistent agony from last more than 29 years and he has remained in jail about 18 days, to meet the ends of justice, it will be just and proper if the sentence is reduced as already undergone and the fine amount is enhanced. As such, the petitioner's conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC is maintained and increase the amount of fine from Rs. 3,500/- to Rs. 40,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the complainant/legal representatives of deceased Mangilal and reduce the sentence to the period already undergone, subject to payment of the time. The aforesaid fine is to be deposited by the petitioner in the trial court within three weeks from the date of this order, and on such deposit, the said amount shall be made over to the complainant PW.3 Bhajja/legal representatives of deceased Mangilal. In default of such deposit, this order shall remain in abeyance for further period of four weeks and if still no deposit is mad within the said period, this revision petition shall be treated as dismissed and the petitioner shall be sent to jail to serve remaining sentence. 42. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be sent back with the copy of this order.