ORDER : Praveer Bhatnagar, J. 1. The present criminal revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 02.08.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Criminal Appeal No.7/2005 (Old No.4/2005) whereby, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.01.2005 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu in Regular Criminal Case No.349/1998 whereby, the accused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence under Section Imprisonment Fine Sentence in default of fine 279 of IPC 06 Months’ R.I. Rs.1,000/- 01 Month R.I. 304A of IPC 02 Years R.I. Rs.1,000/- 01 Month S.I. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the impugned judgment dated 28.01.2005 and 02.08.2005 passed by the Courts below are illegal, arbitrary, unjust and improper. The learned Courts below, without properly appreciating the evidence of PW-2 Jagar Ali and PW-3 Sunil Sharma (who was declared hostile), convicted the accused-petitioner under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC. He further contends that there is no positive evidence against the accused-petitioner that accused-petitioner was driving the questioned vehicle rashly or negligently. Merely on the statement of witnesses that accused-petitioner was driving the vehicle speedily, it cannot be said that accused-petitioner was rash or negligent in driving the vehicle. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.01.2005 and 02.08.2005 may be quashed and set aside and the accused-petitioner may be acquitted from the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner relies upon the judgment passed in “Annapoorna Vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.214 of 2020 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No.8828 of 2019) decided on February 3, 2020”. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner in alternative prays that sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner may be substituted with the period already undergone by him and he may be released. He places reliance upon the following judgments:- (i) Paul George Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2008) 4 SCC 185 (ii) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1332/2003, Ramchandra Vs. State of Rajasthan (iii) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Nos.525 and 526/2008, Mehboob Khan Vs. State (iv) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.109/2004, Taranjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan. (v) Bhalachandra Waman Pathe Vs. The State of Maharashtra 1967 SCC OnLine SC 26 : 1968 ACJ 38 : 1968 Mah LJ 423 5. State of Rajasthan (iii) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Nos.525 and 526/2008, Mehboob Khan Vs. State (iv) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.109/2004, Taranjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan. (v) Bhalachandra Waman Pathe Vs. The State of Maharashtra 1967 SCC OnLine SC 26 : 1968 ACJ 38 : 1968 Mah LJ 423 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supports the judgment passed by the Courts below and opposes reduction in sentence. He places reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Dil Bahadur in Criminal Appeal No.844 of 2023 @ SLP (Crl) No.2984 of 2018”. 6. Before dealing with the revision petition, it is desirable to point out the factual matrix of the case, which are as under:- 6.1. That on 12.09.1998, PW-2 Jafar Ali submitted written report (Exhibit P-2) before the Police Station, Jhunjhunu stating the fact that her niece Shabana @ Feroza aged 10 years was going from home to agriculture field at 11:00 am in the morning and when she reached near to the field then suddenly a roadways bus bearing registration No.R14P1015 came from Peepli Chowk and the driver was driving the vehicle negligently and speedily. In the report, it is also stated that her niece Shabana @ Feroza was standing on the strip of land beside the road. The driver of the said vehicle hit her niece Shabana @Feroza resulting in her death. It is also stated in the report (Exhibit P-2) that at the time of incident, PW-3 Sunil Sharma and one Mohd. Sarif Ansar was also present and they have seen the incident. On receipt of the above report, FIR No.187/1998 was registered at Police Station, Sadar Jhunjhunu with the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC. 6.2 After investigation, police filed challan against the accused-petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC and charges were framed. The accused-petitioner denies the charges and after commencement of trial, prosecution examined 7 witnesses. 6.3 The statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and accused-petitioner has denied any such accident. 6.4 After hearing both the parties, accused-petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 28.01.2005. The learned Appellate Court also affirmed the conviction and sentence passed against the accused-petitioner. 7. 6.4 After hearing both the parties, accused-petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 28.01.2005. The learned Appellate Court also affirmed the conviction and sentence passed against the accused-petitioner. 7. This fact is not denied that accident occurred with roadways bus bearing registration No.R14P1015 and accused-petitioner was driving the said vehicle, resulting into death of deceased Shabana @ Feroza. 8. The accused-petitioner has not raised any specific defence in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 9. The quintessential question before this Court is that whether the accused-petitioner caused death of deceased Shabana @ Feroza by driving the vehicle rashly or negligently. As already pointed out, the occurrence of accident itself is not in dispute and it is also un-refuted that due to accident, Shabana @ Feroza lost her life. 10. To prove the fact of the present case, prosecution mainly relies upon PW-2 Jafar Ali, PW-3 Sunil Sharma, PW-4 Mohan Lal and PW-5 Vijay Singh (Investigating Officer). 11. PW-2 Jafar Ali in his statement states that on 12.09.1998 at 11:00 AM, her niece Shabana @ Feroza was going to the fields and she was on her right side besides the road. She further deposes that, bus bearing registration No.R14P1015 came speedily and struck at her niece Shabana @ Feroza. The driver fled away from the place of occurrence. Her niece Shabana @ Feroza died at the spot. He further states that he filed report (Exhibit P-2) before the Police Station which bears his signatures and site plan (Exhibit P-4) was also prepared which also bears his signatures. 12. The evidence led by the prosecution proves that the accused-petitioner drove the questioned bus speedily and rashly, resulting in the gruesome demise of a young girl. 13. The testimony of material eye-witness, PW-2 Zafar Ali establishes the fact that the accused-petitioner did not have control over the vehicle’s speed as the front tyre of the bus drover over the deceased body and dragged her body from the middle of the road to the extreme wrong side leaving the main road into a dirt track. It was the driver’s duty to anticipate that the girl child may suddenly cross the road. If the driver had control over the speed, he could have saved the deceased life. 14. It was the driver’s duty to anticipate that the girl child may suddenly cross the road. If the driver had control over the speed, he could have saved the deceased life. 14. The deceased’s dead body was found between front and rear tyres. The injuries sustained by the deceased speak, demonstrating the rashness on the part of the driver as she sustained lacerated wounds on her skull and ribs, resulting in fractures of the occipital and parietal bones and third to fifth ribs bursting the lungs. The prosecution evidence of PW-2 proves indisputably that the accused-petitioner was driving the questioned vehicle. There are no compelling grounds to disbelieve the testimony of PW-2 Zafar Ali coupled with documentary evidence Exhibit P-4. Both the courts below inferred the guilt of the accused-petitioners; I do not find perversity in arriving at the accused guilt. 15. 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 02 months 20 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. 16. 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.) 17. 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, deceased succumbed to death. Therefore, no leverage may be given to the accused-petitioner. 18. 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. 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. 19. Considering the facts of the present case, I am of the view that sentence awarded to accused-petitioner under Sections 279 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. 20. 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.