Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The petitioner was driving a Rajasthan Roadways Bus on 2.9.1994 at about 5.00 A.M. and it is alleged that the bus was driven on the wrong side rashly and negligently. In the process, the petitioner is alleged to have hit an unknown person crossing the road, who died on the spot. The petitioner was charged for offences Under Section 279/304A IPC and pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the body of the deceased person was taken for post-mortem and the medical report was placed on record. The prosecution examined seven witnesses, but the only direct evidence is of PW 1, Mr. Om Prakash, who is alleged to be an eye witness. Mr. Om Prakash has deposed that he was attending to the nature’s call in the morning when he saw the bus being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the petitioner on the wrong side which resulted in the bus hitting the deceased and causing his death on the spot. The witness further deposed that the bus Driver/petitioner stopped the bus and PW 1 detained him till the arrival of the police.

3. The petitioner in his defense appeared and deposed himself. The defense is that the dead body was lying on the road and on seeing the same, the petitioner stopped the bus and, in fact, informed the police by personally going to the police station which was in the vicinity of the accident. The police is alleged to have embroiled the petitioner in the case and produced the eye witness PW 1 in support of its case. The defense also examined two other witnesses whose depositions are important for the present case. DW 1 is a passenger who claimed that he was traveling in the bus on the date of the accident while DW 2 is the Conductor. The statement given by both the witnesses is more or less similar and support the case of the defense that there was a dead body lying on the road when the bus was stopped and the police instead of registering a case, arrested the petitioner and seized his license and the bus and falsely implicated him. DW 1 was put a specific question as to whether he had kept the bus ticket, to which he deposed that he should not be expected to retain the bus ticket for a long time as he did not know that such a situation would arise. It may, however, be noted that both the witnesses were brought by the defense and not summoned through the process of the court.

4. On completion of trial, the learned MM convicted the petitioner Under Section 279/304A IPC in terms of the judgment dated 6.10.2006 and passed an order of sentence on 12.10.2006 whereby the petitioner was directed to undergo RI for six months Under Section 304A IPC and further SI for one month Under Section 279 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for ten days. The sentences were to run concurrently.

5. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, preferred an appeal before the learned ASJ. In terms of an order dated 19.5.2007, the appellate court upheld the order of conviction, but modified the order of sentence to RI of six months under both the aforesaid sections. The present revision has, thus, been preferred against the said order.

.6. It is trite to say that this Court while exercising the revision jurisdiction has to .only satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence of order and it is not the function of the Court to sit as a Court of second appeal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner conscious of the said limitation made the submissions within the parameters aforesaid.

.7. The plea of learned Counsel for the petitioner was that there was no medical evidence proved on record to support the case of the prosecution as the prosecution had failed to produce the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem as a witness and the post-mortem report had neither been accepted nor proved. In order to substantiate the infirmity in the case of the prosecution, lear