ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. Unsuccessful in his attempt to assail the judgment dated 30th November, 2002 rendered by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track) Ghatol (for short, 'learned trial Court') before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3 (Fast Track) Banswara (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. At the threshold, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 304-A, 279 and 337 IPC and awarded following sentences :- S. No. Under Section Sentence Fine In default of payment of fine 1 304-A IPC One Year Simple Imprisonment 500/- One month's Simple Imprisonment 2 279 IPC Three Months Simple Imprisonment 300/- Fifteen days' Simple Imprisonment 3 337 IPC Three Months Simple Imprisonment 300/- Fifteen days' 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 affirming judgment of learned trial Court, dismissed the appeal. 3. In brief, facts of the case are that an oral report was submitted before the Police Station Pipalkhut by one Shri Kanti stating that he along with Suri, Bapuda and Dalji were travelling in a trolley attached with tractor bearing No. RJ-03-645. The driver of the tractor, Ramesh, drove the tractor rashly and negligently and with very fast speed due to which the tractor turned turtle. As a consequence of accident, Dalji was crushed and expired on the spot. On the basis of the oral report, an FIR for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was lodged. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner for offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. The charges were framed against the accused-petitioner and accused-petitioner denied all the charges. Before the learned trial Court, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and exhibited several documents. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 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 also affirmed the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court. It is in that background petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court also affirmed the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court. 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, 337 and 304-A IPC. However, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that there are certain mitigating circumstances for reducing the sentence awarded by both the learned Courts below, 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 two decades have lapsed and during 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 inasmuch as due to accident Dalji has died at the age of 22 years. 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. 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 guilt recorded by both the courts below. Otherwise also learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded on finding of guilt recorded by both the courts below. 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 of more than two decades old is very much significant apart from the fact that trial remained pending for more than nine 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 judgment 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. 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. 1,100/- to Rs. 25,000/-. The accused petitioner is directed to deposit amount of fine of Rs. 25,000/- within three months from the date of the order before the learned trial Court. Upon deposition of the requisite amount, while adjusting Rs. 1,100/- as fine imposed by the learned trial Court, remaining amount of Rs. 23,900/- be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased, Dalji by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court is further directed to ensure disbursement of the amount of Rs. 23,900/- to the legal representatives of deceased as expeditiously as possible by serving a notice to them for collecting the amount. In view of above discussion, revision petition is allowed in part as indicated herein above. The accused-petitioner is on bail and therefore his bail bonds are cancelled.