ORDER :

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity “Cr.P.C.”) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.01.2020 passed by Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 211/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. Station House Officer, Ratanpur, Bilaspur charge sheeted the applicant herein alleging that on 02.02.2015 the applicant while driving the offending truck bearing Registration No. HR-26-6731 rashly and negligently caused death of Abhishek Shrivastava which is not amounting to culpable homicide. The applicant abjured his guilt and took the plea that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence.

3. During the Course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents to bring home the offence, whereas the defence neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document in support of its defence.

4. Upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur vide its judgment dated 26.09.2019 passed in Criminal Case No. 241/2015 convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicle Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for one month and fine of Rs. 500/- to undergo RI for one year; and to undergo RI for 3 months and fine of Rs. 3000/- respectively. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

5. In appeal, preferred by the applicant, learned Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur vide order dated 06.01.2020 in Criminal Appeal No. 211/2019 affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned JMFC and dismissed the appeal, against which, the applicant filed instant criminal revision.

6. Shri Lavkush Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that both the Courts below have committed legal error in convicting the applicant under the aforesaid offences as the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. He would alternatively submit that jail sentence awarded to the applicant is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence as the applicant already remained in custody from 06.01.2020 to 22.07.2020 therefore, the period already undergone by the applicant be held to be sufficient sentence against the sentence awarded by the Court below and revision be allowed by modifying the sentence awarded.

7. Per contra, Ms. Priyamvada Singh, Dy. GA for the respondent/State would submit that the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded is based on evidence available on record and the same is well merited. Therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in revisional jurisdiction and the instant criminal revision deserves to be dismissed.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and records of the Courts below with utmost circumspection.

9. The following two questions would arise for consideration in the instant criminal revision:

(i) Whether the prosecution has proved the offences under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC and Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, against the applicant beyond reasonable doubt?

(ii) Whether sentence awarded to the applicant is just and proper?

10. Answer to question No. 1: The trial Magistrate in its judgment dated 26.09.2019 has clearly recorded a finding that the applicant while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently dashed it from behind to the motorcyc