ORDER : Praveer Bhatnagar, J. 1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1990 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2005. 2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 17.08.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chabra, District Baran in Criminal Appeal No.7/2000, whereby, the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment of conviction dated 03.08.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Atru, District Baran in Sessions Case No.80/90, whereby the revisionist- petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under: Under Section 304A IPC Two years' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.3000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Under Section 279 IPC Three months' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. Under Section 337 IPC Three months' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.05.1990, the complainant - Birdhi Lal submitted written report in the police station Kawai, District Baran stating that on 18.05.1990, he along with 25-30 people of his village, went to attend the marriage ceremony of one Ram Pratap's daughter. He took Matador No.RPF 5222 of Vinod Kumar Mittal on rent and Viond Kumar Mittal was driving the Matador. When they returning from the programme to their village Phoolbardoa then near Salpura Railway Station, the petitioner - Vinod Kumar was driving the vehicle in high speed. It is also stated that at 10.00 PM due to high speed of vehicle, Matador overturned and the passengers, sitting in the Matador received injuries along with him. On the basis of written report, the police registered the case under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. However, after the incident, three persons, namely, Mangi Bai, Pana Bai and Reena died, thus Section 304A IPC was added. 4. The trial Court framed charges but the petitioner denied charges and claimed to be tried. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties, passed an order of sentence and conviction dated 03.08.1999. 5. However, after the incident, three persons, namely, Mangi Bai, Pana Bai and Reena died, thus Section 304A IPC was added. 4. The trial Court framed charges but the petitioner denied charges and claimed to be tried. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties, passed an order of sentence and conviction dated 03.08.1999. 5. Aggrieved from the order dated 03.08.1999, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Court and the appellate Court confirmed the conviction of the petitioner vide order dated 17.08.2005. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below erred in passing the order. He submits that the appellate Court did not consider the record, which includes statements of the witnesses and material available on record. Learned counsel submits that the appellate Court ought to have considered the evidence before arriving at any conclusion. 7. Learned counsel submits that the Courts below failed to consider the aspect that the prosecution could not prove rashness and negligent driving on the part of the accused-petitioner before convicting the petitioner under Section 304-A. Learned counsel submits that there was no evidence that the petitioner was driving rashly or negligently. He further submits that the Courts below failed to consider the fact that the due to damage in the tyre, the vehicle accidentally overturned without rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. He submits that the trial Court did not properly examine the statements of PW – 6 Roop Singh, who has not been declared hostile. PW – 6 Roop Singh, in his statements, stated that the petitioner – Vinod Kumar was not driving the vehicle and one ‘Harijan’ was driving the vehicle and he does not know his name. PW – 7 Ganesh Ram and PW – 10 Ram Dayal has also admitted that one ‘Harijan’ was driving the vehicle, however, PW – 10 Ram Dayal was turned hostile. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the Courts below failed to consider the fact that the prosecution has not produced the witness Abdul Farid, Head Constable who conducted the medical examination of the Vehicle but did not examine tyres of the vehicle, which is clear from the documents submitted by the prosecution. He further submits that the prosecution did not examine the investigating officer to prove its case. He further submits that the prosecution did not examine the investigating officer to prove its case. He further submits that Courts below failed to consider that the prosecution has failed to prove its case under Section 279 IPC. The trial Court has not considered the material available on record in this regard. Learned counsel submits that the Courts below failed to consider the aspect that there was no material on record to convict the accused-petitioner under Section 337 IPC. Learned counsel submits that the Courts below have overlooked the material aspects of the statements of the witnesses along with the documents. The Courts below have failed to consider the aspect that Head Constable and Investigating Officer have not been produced by the prosecution and no reason was given for their non-production. He further submits that the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing on the point of sentence under Section 235 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that Sections 360 & 361 CrP.C. are mandatory provisions and no reason has been given in connection with these provisions. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the orders dated 17.08.2005 and 03.08.1999 may be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. It is settled law that powers conferred under Section 397 of CrPC are very limited and Court can interfere only when there is apparent error on record and order under challenge is grossly erroneous or the finding recorded is based on no evidence or the material evidence is ignored and judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. In the light of the above, this Court has to see whether there is illegality and perversity in the findings arrived at by both the Courts below. 12. The accused-petitioner after reading over the substance by the learned trial Court has admitted the fact that at the time of the accident, he was driving the Matador. Similarly, in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he reiterated the fact that he was driving the questioned vehicle. Therefore, accused is staved off from objecting that he was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of occurrence. Similarly, in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he reiterated the fact that he was driving the questioned vehicle. Therefore, accused is staved off from objecting that he was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of occurrence. The accused has also accepted the fact that due to an accident passengers sustained injuries and Mangibi, Panabai and girl child Reena aged two years lost their lives. Material eye-witnesses PW1 Birdhilal, PW-2 Rampartap, PW-3 Babulal, PW-4 Ramkaran, PW-5 Parmanand, PW-6 Roopchand, PW-7 Ganeshlal, PW-8 Radhyshyam, PW-9 Bherulal, PW-10 Ramdayal, PW-11 Kastoori and PW-12 Rajulal unequivocally substantiates the prosecution story that accused-petitioner was driving the Matador speedily and despite warning gave deaf ears to their voices, ultimately resulting into its turtling and loss of life to three persons and injuries to the witnesses. In cross-examintion of the eye-witnesses, accused tried to raise multiple defences and all the witnesses denied the fact that the accident occurred due to some mechanical defect in the Matador or due to the sudden bursting of a tyre or the coming up of a stray animal. This exhibits that the accused did not have any specific defence and tried to come up with inconsistent defences. Therefore, I do not find any perversity in the findings arrived at by both Courts below. 13. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner in alternative prays that accused-petitioner has now attained the age of 59 years and occurrence relates back to 1990 and the accused-petitioner has already served the sentence of about 01 month 13 days out of maximum sentence of two years S.I. awarded to him. Therefore, sentence awarded to accused-petitioner may be reduced to period already undergone by him. 14. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner places his reliance upon the judgments passed in Mahipal Vs. State of Rajasthan: 2016 SCC OnLine Raj 277, Dilip Singh Vs. State: 2015 SCC OnLine Raj 9919 & Bhanwara Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan: 2020(3) RLW 2348 (Raj.) 15. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposes the prayer to reduce the sentence of accused-petitioner as already undergone. He fervently submits that due to the rash and negligent act of the accused-petitioner, three persons succumbed to death and many persons got seriously injured. Therefore, no leverage may be given to the accused-petitioner. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. He fervently submits that due to the rash and negligent act of the accused-petitioner, three persons succumbed to death and many persons got seriously injured. Therefore, no leverage may be given to the accused-petitioner. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Dil Bahadur rendered in Criminal Appeal No.844/2023 SLP (Criminal) No.2984 of 2018 dated 28.03.2023 after referring the judgments of State of M.P. Vs. Bablu 2014 (9) SCC 281 held as under:- “the prime objective of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is necessary with the gravity nature of crime and the manner in which the offence is committed. One should keep in mind the social interest and conscience of the society while considering the determinative factor of sentence with gravity of crime. The punishment should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscience of the society. It is therefore, the solemn duty of the Court to strike a proper balance while awarding the sentence as awarding the lesser sentence encourages any criminal and as a result of the same, the society suffers.” (Emphasis supplied) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Dil Bahadur set aside the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby, Hon’ble High Court upheld the conviction of respondent under Section 304A of the IPC. However, has reduced the sentence from two years to eight months, subject to prior deposit of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation to be paid to family/legal heirs of the deceased. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above matter, restored the sentence of two years and fine imposed by the trial Courts below. 17. Considering the facts of the present case, I am of the view that sentence awarded to accused-petitioner under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the IPC commensurate with the offence committed and there is no cogent reasons for the Court to reduce the sentence of the accused-petitioner. 18. In view of the above, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. The accused-petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds and sureties are forfeited. He is directed to be taken into custody forthwith and sent to the concerned Jail to undergo the remaining period of his sentences. All pending applications are disposed of. Record of the learned Courts below be sent back forthwith.