JUDGMENT : Praveer Bhatnagar, J. 1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1995 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2005. 2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.04.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.97/2004 (Old No.78/2004), whereby, the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment dated 09.11.2004, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jhunjhubnu in Criminal Case No.312/1995, whereby the revisionist- petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 304-A IPC:- Two years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of which, to further undergo 1 month simple imprisonment. Under Section 337 IPC:- Three months rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of which, to further undergo 7 days simple imprisonment. Under Section 279 IPC:- One month rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of which, to further undergo 7 days simple imprisonment. 3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Karni Ram has submitted a Parcha Bayan (P-11) to the effect that he was manager of Sarvodya Coaching School, Jhunjhunu and on 11.05.1995 at about 11:00 A.M., when he was going to his village Kodesar from Jhunjhunu in Bus, which was full of passengers and driven by one Anil brother of the bus-owner Pitram Jat and due to his rashness and negligence, the said bus lost its control, for which the complainant and other passengers were sustained severe injuries and two persons died on the spot. 4. On the basis of the said parcha bayan an F.I.R. No.154/95 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Jhunjhunu for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. During the course of investigation, Police recorded statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation Police filed challan for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC and Section 3 & 4/181 of Motor Vehicle Act before the competent court. 5. Thereafter trial Court framed charges against the accused- petitioner but he denied the same and claimed to be tried. During trial, prosecution examined 20 witnesses and produced various documents in support of its case. 5. Thereafter trial Court framed charges against the accused- petitioner but he denied the same and claimed to be tried. During trial, prosecution examined 20 witnesses and produced various documents in support of its case. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the allegations and prosecution evidence. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties, passed an order of conviction and sentence dated 09.11.2004. 6. Aggrieved from the order dated 09.11.2004, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Court and the appellate Court vide its order dated 29.04.2005, dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the learned court below. Hence, this revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that there is no evidence whatsoever for conviction of the petitioner, and the Courts below, despite non-corroboration from the material witnesses, counted upon the testimony of the sole witness PW 18 Sheesh Pal Singh and convicted the petitioner. 8. The courts below further leaned on the testimony of PW-14 Karniram who did not support the prosecution version that the accused petitioner was driving the vehicle and the accident arose due to the driver's rash and speedy driving. Therefore, the conviction documented by the courts below suffers from perversity. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor justifies the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner and prays for petition dismissal. 10. The scope under revisional jurisdiction is tiniest, and the court can re-examine the evidence if the findings are baseless or based on improper appreciation of or against the evidence. 11. The Courts below based the conviction mainly on the evidence of PW-18 Sheesh Pal Singh and partly relied upon the testimony of PW-14 Karniram. Admittedly, all the other material witnesses have veered around hostile and denied that the petitioner was driving the said vehicle at the time of occurrence and drove it speedily. The witnesses substantiate the prosecution's version that the bus capsized, resulting in the death of four persons and injuries to others. PW 18 Sheesh Pal Singh is one of the victims of the mishap. In his deposition before the trial court, he categorically stated that the accused petitioner, the bus driver, drove it speedily despite knowing the bus was overloaded with passengers, resulting in its turning over. PW 18 Sheesh Pal Singh is one of the victims of the mishap. In his deposition before the trial court, he categorically stated that the accused petitioner, the bus driver, drove it speedily despite knowing the bus was overloaded with passengers, resulting in its turning over. In cross-examination, the witness fervently denied the defence version that the accident occurred due to the sudden coming over of a stray animal on the road. 12. The courts below partially relied upon the complainant PW- 14 Karniram’s version, as he admitted that Paracha Bayan Exhibit- P/11 bears his signature. The witness also revealed that he is a school teacher and usually doesn’t put signatures on plain paper without reading its content. The police registered the instant case on the statement rendered by the witness in the hospital after being admitted for treatment of injuries sustained due to the accident. The witness disclosed that the bus turned over on the road, resulting in injuries to him and other co-passengers, but denied the content of the Paracha bayan that the accused petitioner was driving the erring vehicle and the cause of the accident was speedy driving of the bus. 13. It's apparent that the said witness endeavoured to rescind his signed version, but there is no persuading and compelling reasons for the courts below to brush away the signed statement of the said witness. Further, the contents of Ex-P/11 get corroboration from PW 18 Sheesh Pal Singh. The witness doesn’t have any animosity with the accused petitioner. Therefore, this court has no captivating reason to disbelieve his deposition. However, it becomes a case of conviction based on the testimony of a solitary witness. Still, there is no bar in finding conviction on the testimony of a solitary witness so long as the witness is reliable and trustworthy. 14. Further, the accused-petitioner attempted to take numerous defences, such as a stray donkey suddenly coming onto the road, a vehicle coming to the opposite side rashly, and to avoid the accident, the bus jumping into a pit, resulting in its turning, etc. This implies that the petitioner did not have any specific version. 15. Therefore, this court does not find any tangible ground to interfere with the conviction recorded by the courts below. 16. This implies that the petitioner did not have any specific version. 15. Therefore, this court does not find any tangible ground to interfere with the conviction recorded by the courts below. 16. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner in alternative prays that accused-petitioner has now attained the age of 51 years and occurrence relates back to 1995 and the accused- petitioner has already served the sentence of about 1 month 5 days out of maximum sentence of two years simple imprisonment awarded to him. Therefore, sentence awarded to accused-petitioner may be reduced to period already undergone by him. 17. 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) RLW2348 (Raj.) 18. 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, four persons succumbed to death. Therefore, no leverage may be given to the accused-petitioner. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Dil Bahadu r 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. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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.