ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.:–The sole petitioner, Vijay Rai @ Bijoy Roy having been found guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 279, 304A of the IPC and has been directed to undergo S.I. for three months, R.I. six months respectively with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment dated 23.08.2002 passed by Sri S.P. Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Saran at Chapra in G.R. No. 4047/1998 as well as judgment of affirmation dated 30.01.2003 passed by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Cr. Appeal No. 93/2002 has put under challenge the concurrent finding through instant petition. However, while admitting the petition on 04.03.2003, the same has been confined to the extent of sentence only and as such, now the matter confines with regard to sentence only irrespective of merit of the case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. 3. The basic ingredient of sentencing policy under criminal jurisprudence happens to be that it should be found properly balanced with the nature of offence so alleged, the gravity of the offence whereunder accused has been convicted and its impact in and around societal atmosphere. That means to say, infliction of sentence should be in consonance with the nature of crime. That means to say, neither it should be a lenient nor deterrent one. It should be in proportion thereto. 4. For adjudicating the matter in its right perspective, the nature of offence so alleged is also to be seen in cursory manner. As per allegation, three bullock carts (tyre gari) were passing through. A child (deceased) aged about two years was playing on the road. The prosecution party, even seeing the carts coming, did not remove the deceased rather they directed the Bahalwan (bullock cart rider) to go safely after taking necessary precautions and during course thereof, the boy met with an unfortunate death on account of having been crushed. Three carts were passing through but petitioner was pinpointed because he had earlier threatened and being the evidence in aforesaid manner on account of which it has been perceived as a case of contributory negligence, it looks proper to modify the sentences whatever inflicted by the learned lower court and found affirmed at the appellate stage as by having the period already undergone. As such, petitioner, being on bail is exonerated from liability of bail bond. 5. As such, petitioner, being on bail is exonerated from liability of bail bond. 5. With the aforesaid modification in sentence while maintaining the conviction under Section 279 as well as 304 (A) of the IPC, the instant petition is dismissed.