Procedural errors in the examination of the accused can render a conviction unsustainable. The court has discretion to modify the sentence based on the circumstances of the case.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 06.09.2005 and order on sentence dated 08.09.2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, awarding the sentence to the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six days; sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC, in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six days; sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 304-A IPC, in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of twelve days and upholding the same by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 20.02.2006, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. Factual matrix, as emerges from the record, is that on the fateful day of 23.04.1994 at about 05.00 p.m., an accident had taken place at Barafkhana Chowk. The vehicle involved in the accident was a Bus bearing registration No. DL1P 4357. In the accident, one Smt. Kamini Sharma sustained simple injuries and one Madhu Sudan Upadhayaya died. The case of the prosecution was that at the time of accident, the petitioner was deputed as driver of the bus and was driving the bus rashly and negligently which resulted into accident and snatched a life apart from causing injuries to Smt. Kamini Sharma. An FIR of the case was recorded. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

3. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the notice served.

4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he had claimed innocence. The petitioner did not opt to lead any evidence in his defence. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide judgment dated 06.09.2005 held the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and convicted him for the said offences. The order on sentence was passed on 08.09.2005.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.39/2005. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 20.02.2006, confirmed the conviction of the petitioner as well as sentence of imprisonment awarded to him.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition to set aside the judgments rendered by the Courts below and claiming acquittal.

7. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that PW4 Kamini Sharma had not seen the offending vehicle. He further submits that no skid marks of the tyres of the bus were shown in the site plan and even site plan was not prepared at the instance of PW4. It is further submitted that PW4 had not seen the petitioner driving the bus and she saw the petitioner only after the incident on his apprehension by the public.

8. There is no basis in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as injured/eye witness Kamini Sharma (PW4) had specifically stated that on 23.04.1994 when she along with her cousin Madhusun was going for shopping on a two wheeler scooter and reached at the red light at about 05.00 p.m., one bus No. DL1P 4357 came in a very high speed and struck against their scooter, due to which they fell down. She sustained injury and his cousin brother sustained multiple injuries on his head. She identified the accused and stated that the said bus was driven by accused. Her cousin was removed to HRH Hospital. She categorically stated that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. In the hospital, her cousin brother expired.

9. There is en