Order : 1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 08.04.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur, in Criminal Appeal No.13/2004 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 16.04.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.12188/2000 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:- Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of fine Section 279 IPC 6 months’ S.I. Rs.200/- 7 days’ S.I. Section 304A IPC 2 years’ S.I. Rs.500/- 15 days’ S.I. Section 337 IPC 6 months’ S.I. Rs.200/- 7 days’ S.I. 2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment. 3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 12.09.2000, one Pappu gave a written report to the Police at Police Station Industrial Area Basni, Jodhpur to the effect that he was driving a truck bearing No. RJ-19-G-2636 from Jhalamand to Jodhpur loaded with Nirma soap and surf, wherein Shri Om Prakash, Ashok and Bhagwana Ram were sitting. When his truck reached pali road near AFRI main gate, his truck was hit by another truck filled with bajri bearing No.RJ-19- G-1074 which was driven by the present petitioner Birda Ram, as a result of which, Bhagwana Ram and Ashok fell down from the truck and sustained multiple severe injuries and during treatment, Bhagwana Ram died. Upon the aforesaid information, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner in the Court concerned. 4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and some documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same and then, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge convicted the accused for offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304A of IPC vide judgment dated 16.04.2003 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge which was dismissed vide judgment dated 08.04.2004. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition. 5. Ld. Counsel Ms. Deepika Purohit, representing the petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 2000. He had remained in jail for eight days after passing of the judgment by the appellate court. No other case has been reported against him. He hails from a very poor family and belongs to the weaker section of the society. He was 35 years old at the time of incident, now he is aged about 56 years and is facing trial since the year 2000 and he has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for eight days and except the present one no other case has been registered against him. 7. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. 8. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the petitioner remained in jail for some time and he is facing the rigor for last 25 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. 8. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the petitioner remained in jail for some time and he is facing the rigor for last 25 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the circumstances of the case, age of the petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration for some days and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is of two years as well as the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner has already undergone till date. 9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 08.04.2004 passed by learned Additonal Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.13/2004 & the judgment dated 16.04.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.4, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.12188/2000 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is modified to the extent that the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The fine amount imposed by the trial Court is hereby maintained. Two months’ time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month S.I. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled. 10. The revision petition is allowed in part. 11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.