ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) HEARD

( 2 ) LEAVE granted.

( 3 ) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant.

( 4 ) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell are as follows: the appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC') by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and one year respectively. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. An appeal was filed and the leaned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. II, Bettiah, West Champaran affirmed the conviction and sentence. The revision filed was dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that there was no scope for interference.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution version has not been established. There were several infirmities which the high Court unfortunately did not notice. The I. O. , the Doctor and the informant were not examined. The post-mortem report was also not exhibited. PW-3, who claimed to be the son of