ORDER : Deepak Maheshwari, J. 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by accused – petitioner – Jagdish against the judgment dated 22nd December, 2015 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Rent Appellate Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 65/2014 whereby, the appeal has been rejected while upholding the conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court under judgment dated 9th February, 2012. Vide this judgment, learned trial Court has convicted the accused – petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him as under:- Section 304-A IPC Two years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-; and in default of payment of fine of Rs.5000/- to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Section 279 IPC Three months’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-; and in default of payment of fine of Rs.1000/- to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Section 337 IPC Three months’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-; and in default of payment of fine of Rs.500/- to undergo 15 days’ simple imprisonment. Section 338 IPC Six months’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-; and in default of payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- to undergo one month simple imprisonment additionally. 2. Facts in brief are that in the intervening night of 28th and 29th February, 2000 at about 11:00 p.m., complainant – Chand Singh and his family members were going from Jodhpur to Beawar after attending a marriage by Jeep No. RJ-01/P-2879 when a speeding truck (No. RJ-19/G-6328) collided with the said Jeep near village Devariya at about 12 to 12:15 a.m. On account of the said accident, jeep driver – Bhagwan Singh, Indra Singh, Palas, Ummed Singh and Sushma died on the spot and Bhanwar Singh, Dinesh, Subodh, Ravindra Singh and complainant – Chand Singh suffered injuries. The accident was reported to have taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. 3. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the truck driver, accused – Jagdish for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. 4. After trial, learned trial Court convicted the accused, as mentioned above. The appeal preferred by the accused – Jagdish against the said judgment was rejected while upholding the judgment passed by the trial Court. 5. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the truck driver, accused – Jagdish for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. 4. After trial, learned trial Court convicted the accused, as mentioned above. The appeal preferred by the accused – Jagdish against the said judgment was rejected while upholding the judgment passed by the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the concurrent findings given by both the Courts below, he does not challenge the impugned judgments so far as the conviction is concerned but his main thrust of argument is that learned Courts below have awarded the maximum sentence to the accused – petitioner and thus, a very harsh attitude has been adopted against him. It has been contended that when the accident is alleged to have taken place, the accused – petitioner was only 23 years of age. He has been facing the criminal proceedings for last 17 years. He has been in custody since 22nd December, 2015. Thus, he has served out more than half of the maximum sentence which can be awarded for the offences proved against him. It has also been contended that after realizing the gravity of guilt, the accused – petitioner has decided not to continue the profession of driver. In view of these facts, a lenient view deserves to be taken towards him. 6. In support of the prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sheokaran v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2016(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1334 wherein, benefit of probation under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was extended to the accused – revisionist – Sheokaran for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 19th August, 2015 in the case of Jaikishan v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 264/2014) whereby, for the similar offences, reducing the sentence awarded by learned trial Court from 2 years to 1 year, 5 months, 13 days, i.e., the period of sentence undergone, the petition was allowed. 7. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer saying that five deaths have been caused because of the accident, hence, no leniency is liable to be extended to the accused – petitioner. 8. In view of the arguments advanced, I have perused the judgment passed by learned trial Court and appellate Court as also the evidence available on record. Important prosecution witnesses have corroborated the prosecution story in their evidence. Complainant PW-1 Chand Singh and injured eye witnesses PW-3 Ravindra Singh, PW-4 Bhanwar Singh, PW-5 Dinesh and PW-7 Subodh have completely corroborated the prosecution story stating that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of accused – Jagdish. Further, this fact has also been corroborated by PW-8 Smt. Babita Singh, registered owner of the Truck No. RJ-19/G-6328 that the accused Jagdish was employed as driver of this truck. Accused – Jagdish in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has also admitted his presence on the defaulting truck at the time of accident but has taken the plea that at the time of accident, some other person was driving the truck. But he has not been able to disclose the details of that person. Learned trial Court, looking to the provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, has concluded that the burden was upon the accused to prove that at relevant time, who was that other person driving the truck; failing which, adverse inference has been drawn against him. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by learned trial Court appears to be based upon the convincing prosecution evidence. On perusal of the judgment passed by learned appellate Court, it also appears to be legally perfect. Further, in view of the fact that learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also not challenged the judgments so far as conviction is concerned, the judgments impugned to this extent are liable to be maintained. 9. Insofar as the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner by learned trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court is concerned, I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the judgments relied upon by him. 10. 9. Insofar as the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner by learned trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court is concerned, I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the judgments relied upon by him. 10. In case of Sheokaran (supra), benefit under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act has been extended to the accused but the case relied upon factually differs from the case in hand, as five deaths have been caused due to the accident caused by the accused – petitioner. Thus, the gravity and seriousness of the offences proved against the accused – petitioner is much more. So fas as the appeal decided by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Kishan’s case (supra) is concerned, a period of 1 year 5 months 13 days of the undergone sentence was there. 11. Taking into consideration the increasing number of road accidents which daily occur on the Indian roads, recently, the view expressed in various judicial pronouncements in regard to the sentence has become more strict. It has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various pronouncements that proportionality of the sentence must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2000) 5 SCC 82 pertaining to the offence of Section 304-A IPC has laid down as below:- “1. When automobiles have become death traps and leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic. * * * 13. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic. * * * 13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly, that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of the vehicle he cannot escape from a jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.” 13. It has been further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi (Criminal Appeal No. 520/2015, decided on 30th March, 2015) in a case of Section 304-A IPC as below:- “The principle of sentencing recognises the corrective measures but there are occasions when the deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon the facts of the case. In our opinion, it is a fit case where we are constrained to say that the High Court has been swayed away by the passion of mercy in applying the principle that payment of compensation is a factor for reduction of sentence to 24 days. It is absolutely in the realm of misplaced sympathy.” Finally, the Hon’ble Apex Court came to the conclusion while deciding this appeal that sentence of one year imposed by the learned trial Magistrate as also affirmed by the appellate Court for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC should be reduced to 6 months. 14. Similarly, in the case of State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh & Ors. reported in (2012) 2 SCC 182 where five persons succumbed to the injuries caused in the road accident because of rash and negligent driving of the accused – respondents, Hon’ble Supreme Court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 6 months with a fine of Rs.5,000/- on each of the accused persons while setting aside the order passed by the High Court reducing their sentences to the period already undergone (15 days). 15. While taking into consideration the principles laid down in the facts and circumstances of the cases stated above, it is apparent that this is not a case wherein benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is at all justifiable. However, other mitigating factors pleaded by learned counsel for the accused – petitioner to reduce the sentence may, of course, be considered. He has stated that the accident in question took place in the night of 28th - 29th February, 2000, i.e., almost 17 years ago. The accused – petitioner has undergone the trauma of facing protracted criminal proceedings for a prolonged period of 17 years. Further, he is in custody since 22nd December, 2015 i.e. for about 1 year and 2 months. In support of this fact, the custody certificate of the accused – petitioner has been referred by the learned counsel. It has also been stated that the accused – petitioner has never been convicted in any other criminal case including that of rash and negligent driving. He has further submitted that the accused – petitioner, after realizing the seriousness of the offence and also repenting upon its consequences, has decided to stop the profession of driving. It has also been stated that the accused – petitioner has never been convicted in any other criminal case including that of rash and negligent driving. He has further submitted that the accused – petitioner, after realizing the seriousness of the offence and also repenting upon its consequences, has decided to stop the profession of driving. An undertaking given by him to this effect has also been produced before the Court which has been attested by the Superintendent of Central Jail, Jodhpur wherein, the accused – petitioner has been presently lodged. Learned counsel thus submits that the deterrent effect required to be achieved by inflicting harsh punishment upon the accused has thus been achieved. 16. Taking into consideration the facts mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner as stated above, this Court is convinced that the sentence awarded to him by the impugned judgments for a period of 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment, which is the maximum term of the sentence for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, should be reduced to the period of custody already undergone by him. However, in order to give effect to the undertaking given by the accused – petitioner for discontinuing the profession of driving in future, it is also directed that he will surrender his driving license before the trial Court on his release from the Central Jail, Jodhpur along with the prayer made to the concerned Transport Authority to cancel the same. He will further submit the undertaking before the trial Court that in future he will not apply for driving license before any of the Transport Authorities and also that he will not drive any vehicle. In case, he fails to comply with the undertaking given by him, he will be liable to undergo the complete term of sentence awarded to him by the trial Court. 17. The revision petition is thus partly allowed in above terms only to the extent of quantum of sentence while maintaining remaining part of the impugned judgments.