JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has preferred this revision petition being dis-satisfied with the judgment dated 20th June, 2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh Camp at Sujangarh (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), whereby the learned appellate Court, while reducing the sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sujangarh (Churu) (for short, 'learned trial Court'), has modified the judgment dated 5th of February, 2002 passed by the learned trial court. The learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and awarded following sentences- S.No. Under Section Sentence Fine In default of payment of fine 1. 279 IPC Six Months Simple Imprisonment 500/- Fifteen days' Simple Imprisonment 3. 304-A IPC Two Years Simple Imprisonment 1,000/- Three months' Simple Imprisonment 2. Being aggrieved by judgment of learned trial Court, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. before the learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court, while reducing the sentences, parity allowed the appeal. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 29.08.1998 PW.3 Shri Sanjay Sharma. SHO, Police Station Chappar went to Govt. Hospital, Sujangarh and recorded statements of one Yunus Ali. In his statements, Yunus Ali stated that he along with Bajrang Lal and Liaqat Ali were going on a motor cycle, which was driven by Bajrang Lal. When they reached near a bridge of Beed Chapar, a jeep bearing No. RJ-23-C-2601, coming from the opposite direction, which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver at very high speed dashed with the motor cycle. Due to the said accident, Bajrang Lal became unconscious and he suffered injuries on his head, feet and hands. He further informed to RW.3 that Liyakat Ali also suffered injuries and later on they were taken to hospital at Sujangarh in another jeep. During treatment, Bajrang Lal expired. On the basis of statements of Yunus Ali, an FIR bearing No. 125/1998 for offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A IPC was registered. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner for offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A IPC. The charges were framed against the accused-petitioner and accused-petitioner denied all the charges. During trial, on the basis of a compromise, the accused-petitioner was acquitted for offence under Section 337 IPC. Before the learned trial Court, the prosecution examined six witnesses. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner for offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A IPC. The charges were framed against the accused-petitioner and accused-petitioner denied all the charges. During trial, on the basis of a compromise, the accused-petitioner was acquitted for offence under Section 337 IPC. Before the learned trial Court, the prosecution examined six witnesses. Thereafter, statement of accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and, in his defence, petitioner examined two witnesses. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC and sentenced as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court, while reducing the sentence, partly allowed the appeal. It is in that background petitioner has approached this Court. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has not challenged the concurrent findings recorded by learned Courts below to the extent petitioner is held guilty for the offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC. However, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that there are certain mitigating circumstances for reducing the sentence awarded by the learned appellate Court, and therefore, taking into account the peculiar facts of the case, sentences awarded to the accused-petitioner be reduced to the sentence he has already undergone. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that since occurrence of the incident more than eighteen years have lapsed and during the interregnum petitioner has suffered a lot. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on following judgments - Ismail v. Police Sub. Inspector Hospet [2013 (2) CJ (Cri.) (SC) 374]. Jita Ram v. State of Rajasthan [2012 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1035]. Rahim v. State of Rajasthan [2011 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 331]. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed prayer of the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that both the learned Courts below have recorded finding against the accused-petitioner, and therefore, it is not desirable to reduce the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner. In the alternative, learned Public Prosecutor submits that if the Court feels inclined to reduce the sentence to the extent already undergone by the accused-petitioner, then family of the victim be adequately compensated. 6. In the alternative, learned Public Prosecutor submits that if the Court feels inclined to reduce the sentence to the extent already undergone by the accused-petitioner, then family of the victim be adequately compensated. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment of learned appellate Court as well as learned trial Court and thoroughly scanned record of the case. 7. There remains no quarrel that the learned trial Court, on cumulative reading of statements of the witnesses in conjunction with the medical evidence and other evidence, has recorded a definite finding that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the petitioner. The aforesaid view of learned trial Court is affirmed by the learned appellate Court. Therefore, in totality, I am not persuaded to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by both the courts below. Otherwise also the learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded on finding of fact guilt recorded by both the courts. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also candidly submitted that, while maintaining conviction, some of the mitigating factors having direct ramification on the incident be considered for reducing the sentence already undergone by the accused-petitioner. 9. Taking into account the entire fact scenario and the concession made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I feel persuaded to accede to prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner. For granting indulgence to the petitioner, a very vital fact that incident is more than eighteen years old is very much significant apart from the fact that trial remained pending for more than four years. Thereafter appeal was decided and the instant revision petition is pending before this Court for last almost thirteen years. It is also noteworthy that during the trial, as well as during the pendency of the appeal and revision petition before this Court, the petitioner was out on bail and he has lived a peaceful life and has spent his time as a law abiding citizen therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by incarcerating him in jail. That apart, the judgments of Supreme Court in Ismail (supra) and this Court in Rahim (supra) and Jita Ram (supra) are worth reliance in the backdrop of peculiar facts of the instant case. 10. That apart, the judgments of Supreme Court in Ismail (supra) and this Court in Rahim (supra) and Jita Ram (supra) are worth reliance in the backdrop of peculiar facts of the instant case. 10. While considering the passage of time and the mental agony and harassment suffered by the accused-petitioner, this Court in the case of Rahim (supra) has held - "9. I have perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the incident took place in the year 1993 and the accused-petitioner underwent imprisonment for about 18 days. The petitioner has undergone mental agony, harassment and financial burden in facing the investigation, trial of the case and in prosecuting the appeal and this revision. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be secured if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him and fine is enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- out of which Rs. 8,000/- will be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Khamana Ram as compensation." 11. Therefore, the revision petition deserves acceptance in part, subject to modification that sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner be reduced to already undergone while enhancing the fine from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 35,000/-. The accused petitioner is directed to deposit amount of fine of Rs. 33,500/-, as the petitioner has already deposited fine of Rs. 1,500/-, within three months from the date of the order before the learned trial Court. Upon deposition the requisite amount i.e. 35,000/-, the said amount be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased, Bajrang Lal by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court is further directed to ensure disbursement of the amount of Rs. 33,500/- to the legal representatives of deceased as expeditiously as possible by serving a notice to them for collecting the amount. 12. In view of above discussion, revision petition is allowed in part as indicated herein above. 13. The accused-petitioner is on bail and therefore his bail-bonds are cancelled. *******