JUDGMENT 1. - Aforementioned revision petition has been preferred on behalf of petitioner under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to assail the judgment dated 06.12.2013 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Srimadhopur, District Sikar, whereby petitioner was held guilty of offences under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. and under Section 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and was sentenced as under:- For offence under Section 279 I.P.C., six-months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default thereof, to further undergo fifteen-days imprisonment. For offence under Section 304-A I.P.C., two-years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default thereof, to further undergo four-months imprisonment. For offence under Section 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, one-month simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default thereof, to further undergo seven-days simple imprisonment. 2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had preferred an appeal. The Lower Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 22.09.2014 upheld the conviction and affirmed the sentenced awarded by the trial Court. 4. Hence, this revision petition before this Court. 5. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that complainant - Mahesh Kumar Sharma presented an application [Exhibit-P/2] at Police Station, Khandela stating therein that on 29.03.2012 at about 01:30 to 02:00 P.M. petitioner, Ramswaroop S/o Bhagwan Singh, in a bus, bearing registration No. RJ-23-PA- 2430 pertaining to Rajasthan Senior Secondary School, Gokulka-bas for dropping children, was going from Gokul-ka-bas to Chhara. He was driving the bus at a high speed in rash and negligent manner and ran over the bus over Rohitash S/o. Ramswaroop, aged about eleven-years, who was coming on foot from the opposite side. 6. Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that since two Courts below have relied upon the testimony of eye-witnesses, he will not be in a position to assail the conviction. 7. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has very fairly submitted that he has nothing in his arsenal, except to point out discripencies, contradictions and improvements in the testimony of the eye-witnesses. 8. Counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that he is conscious that this Court, being a third Court will not be in a position to re-evaluate and re-assess the evidence. 9. 8. Counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that he is conscious that this Court, being a third Court will not be in a position to re-evaluate and re-assess the evidence. 9. Counsel appearing for the petitioner, without challenging the conviction, has very fairly submitted that keeping petitioner behind the bars will serve no useful purpose and the petitioner is ready and willing to compensate the family of the deceased in monetary terms. 10. Argument of counsel appearing for the petitioner is that since it is a case of rash and negligent act, which led to accident, intention to commit offence cannot be attributed to the petitioner. 11. Submission of counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner was employed as driver at the meagre salary of Rs. 5000/- per month. 12. Last submission of counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a sole bread earner of the family and has large family to maintain and in case, he is kept behind the bars for an indefinite period, the family of the petitioner will suffer immensely. 13. Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Rajasthan, has submitted that the petitioner has been sentenced to two years imprisonment and at least for monetarily compensating the family of the deceased, the petitioner should deposit minimum wages of two years. The State Counsel further submitted that Rs. 210/- per day has been prescribed as minimum wages in the State of Rajasthan and by working for two years, petitioner will earn about Rs. 1,50,000/-. 14. Considering the submissions advance by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the fact that the petitioner has not been convicted or involved in any other case previously or after the present incident, this Court is of the view that an opportunity ought to be given to the petitioner to follow the path of the rectitude. 15. This Court is also conscious of the fact that offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. carry maximum imprisonment of two-years and, therefore, in such circumstances, the Court has to balance its approach to reform the petitioner and at the same time to apply a balm in healing the wounds of the parents of the child who died untimely. 16. 15. This Court is also conscious of the fact that offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. carry maximum imprisonment of two-years and, therefore, in such circumstances, the Court has to balance its approach to reform the petitioner and at the same time to apply a balm in healing the wounds of the parents of the child who died untimely. 16. It is true that any amount is not sufficient to compensate the loss of person, but considering over flowing jails in present days, this Court is of the view that for all offences jail is not the only answer. 17. Taking totality of circumstances, in the present case, the sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to twenty-two days, period already undergone by the petitioner, subject to deposit of payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh Only] as a fine by the petitioner in the trial Court. The amount of fine, so deposited under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be paid as compensation to the legal heirs/parents of deceased. Hence, it is ordered that upon deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the petitioner in the trial Court, the petitioner shall be released to the period already undergone towards sentence. The sentence of fine awarded by the trial Court stand enhanced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. As stated earlier, the amount of fine shall be disbursed to legal heirs of the deceased and amount, so paid shall be over and above any compensation they may receive under the Motor Vehicles Act. 18. However, it is clarified here that in case, petitioner fails to deposit the fine, the benefit of reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner. 19. Resultantly, the present revision petition stands disposed of, as indicated herein above. 20. Upon disposal of main petition, the stay application, filed therewith does not survive, the same is also disposed of. *******