GULJAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant criminal revision under Sec. 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code' hereinafter), the accused-petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 23.3.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, Camp Sri Karanpur (for short, the appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 41/1988, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirming the judgment and order dated 22.8.1988 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter) whereby the trial Court convicted the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sec. 304-A, Indian Penal Code. and sentenced him to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months simple imprisonment.

(2.) The facts of the case, in a nut shell, are that on 26.1.1981, at about 1:15 P.M., Smf. Jamna W/o deceased Vishna Ram Nayak lodged an F.I.R. with Police Station. Sri Karanpur alleging therein that when she, alongwith her husband deceased Vishna Ram and their daughter Miss Chothi were going for marketing, near a radio shop, Truck No. RJF 3857 driven by the accused-petitioner came from behind and hit Vishna Ram, on account of which Vishna Ram fell on the road and the wheel of the truck crushed his head and as a result of which Vishna Ram died on the spot. After investigation, the police filed Challan against the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sec. 304-A, Indian Penal Code. The trial Court framed charge against the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sec. 304-A, Indian Penal Code., to which the petitioner denied and sought trial. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court, vide judgment and order dated 22.8.1988, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner as noticed above. The appeal filed by the accused-petitioner stood dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 23.3.1.994. Hence, this criminal revision.

(3.) At the very out set, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge his conviction and he has confined his arguments only on the point of quantum of sentence. It has been contended that the petitioner has already under gone imprisonment for nearly five months; he has been facing protracted trial, appeal and revision for more than 25 years, i.e., since 1981 and, therefore, the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below.