JUDGMENT : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. 1. This Criminal Writ Petition is preferred by the petitioner/accused Prithvi Raj @ Prithvi Singh assailing the impugned order dated 30.06.2016 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No. 07/2012 by which Learned Lower Appellate Court while confirming the conviction of petitioner/accused for offence under Section 279 and 304A IPC reduced the sentence from 6 months to 3 months for offence under Section 279 IPC and from 2 years to 6 months for offence under Section 304-A IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.02.2004 complainant PW 3 Gopal Singh submitted a written report before the SHO Police Station, Mangaliyawas at mortuary of J.L.N. Hospital, Ajmer inter-alia alleging that on 02.02.2004 at 11 a.m. He along with PW 4 Ladu Singh proceeded from village Mayapur to Arjunpura Jagir. At about 12 noon they reached near Balaji Paultry Farm, ahead to Kesarpura. His relative Nanga Singh (deceased) was proceeding ahead to him on vehicle M-80 No. RJ 01-5M-5936. From behind, from the side of Ajmer Jeep No. RJ 01-T-640 came with high speed and hit the vehicle M-80. The driver of the jeep was Prithvi Raj. Nanga Singh sustained injuries on head and right leg and he died on the spot. On this report police registered FIR No. 16/2004 and started investigation. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner/accused for offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. 3. Learned Trial Court read over substance of charges to accused-petitioner for which he denied and claimed for trial. To substantiate the charges prosecution examined PW 1 Madan Singh Rawat, PW 2 Mohan Singh, PW 3 Gopal Singh complainant, PW 4 Ladu Singh, PW 5 Nemi Chand, PW 6 Gopal Singh S/o Phool Singh and PW 7 Bhanwar Lal Sharma and also proved 12 documents. Petitioner/accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. wherein he stated that prosecution evidence is false; however, no defence evidence was adduced by the petitioner/accused. 4. Petitioner/accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. wherein he stated that prosecution evidence is false; however, no defence evidence was adduced by the petitioner/accused. 4. After hearing arguments, Learned Trial Court i.e. Nyayadhikari Gram Nyayalay, Pisangan vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.01.2011 (Annexure-2) hold the accused-petitioner guilty for rash and negligent driving and for accident resulting in death of Nanga Singh and convicted him for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him as follows :- Offence Sentence awarded by Trial Court 279 IPC 6 months S.I. & fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. For one month. 304A IPC 2 years S.I. & fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. For one month. 5. Against the judgment of conviction & order of sentence passed by the Learned Trial Court petitioner/accused preferred appeal. The same was heard and decided by Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Ajmer who partly allowed the appeal and while maintaining the conviction for offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC reduced the sentence as follows vide impugned judgment dated 30.06.2016 (Annexure-2). Offence Sentence modified by Appellate Court Sentence awarded by Trial Court 279 IPC 3 months S.I. & fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. For 7 days 6 months S.I. & fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. For one month. 304A IPC 6 months S.I. & fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. For 15 days. 2 years S.I. & fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. For one month. 6. Being aggrieved of impugned conviction recorded by Learned Nyayadhikari Gram Nyayalay, Pisangan vide judgment dated 13.01.2011 (Annexure-2) and the judgment of order of sentence dated 30.06.2016 (Annexure-1) passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Ajmer, accused-petitioner preferred this Revision petition before this Court. 7. Learned Counsel for petitioner Mr. Ashvin Garg submits that since there is concurrent finding regarding conviction of petitioner/accused, therefore he is not challenging the conviction of petitioner/accused. 7. Learned Counsel for petitioner Mr. Ashvin Garg submits that since there is concurrent finding regarding conviction of petitioner/accused, therefore he is not challenging the conviction of petitioner/accused. He submits that the incident took place on 02.02.2004 and since last 12 years petitioner is facing agony of protracted trial of this case and he is in custody since 30.06.2016, and he has served sentence for more than 4 months and maximum sentence awarded is 6 months. He submits that petitioner is ready to compensate the victim/victims therefore while enhancing the fine amount which can be paid to victims as compensation, the sentence of petitioner may be reduced. 8. Learned Counsel relied on Kamla Prasad v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013 (2) RLW 1845 (Raj.). 9. Learned Mr. RS Raghav, Deputy Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent submits that adequate compensation may be awarded to victims. 10. Heard. 11. Since the sentence awarded to petitioner by the Learned Lower Appellate Court is 6 months, out of which more than 4 months have already been served and petitioner is ready to compensate the victims. 12. In the matter of Kamla Prasad v. State of Rajasthan (supra) this Court considering the fact that petitioner had undergone a protracted trial for more than 29 years and also suffered trauma of protracted trial, looking to overall facts and circumstances of the case, to meet ends of justice reduced the sentence as already undergone and fine amount was enhanced from Rs.3,500/- to Rs.40,000/- . 13. In the case in hand also, petitioner is suffering from agony of protracted trial since last 12 years and has already served the sentence for more than 4 months, therefore to meet ends of justice, while maintaining the conviction of petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, the sentence of petitioner/accused is reduced to as already undergone and the fine amount is increased from Rs.1000+1000 to Rs.40,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the legal representatives of deceased Nanga Singh. 14. The aforesaid amount is to be deposited within 15 days from the date of receiving certified copy of this order and on such deposit the said amount be paid to the Legal Representatives of deceased Nanga Singh. In default of such deposit within aforesaid period, this Writ Petition shall be treated as dismissed. 15. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 16. In default of such deposit within aforesaid period, this Writ Petition shall be treated as dismissed. 15. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 16. The record of the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court be sent back with the copy of this order forthwith.