U.B. Saha, J.

1. The instant criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner, conductor of the offending vehicle under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr PC, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 25.02.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar in Criminal Appeal 47 (3) of 2002 whereby and whereunder learned Sessions Judge while setting aside the order of conviction under Section 279 IPC, upheld the conviction under Section 304(A) IPC and reduced the sentence of RI from six months to three months and also set aside the order to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- passed by the learned SDJM, Sonari vide his judgment dated 24.06.2002 in GR Case No. 307 of l996. Heard Mr. P Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. BS Sinha, learned Addl. PP for the State.

2. Prosecution case in brief is as follows:-That, the deceased Jagot Phukan boarded the bus being No. ASN 7727 at a place known as Mahmora in which the present accused petitioner was the conductor. After covering a distance of hardly about one and half kilometer, the deceased suddenly fell down from the bus and was run over by the said bus and died on the spot. After the accident, the bus was stopped and hearing the sound of the accident people residing nearby the place of the occurrence also rushed to the place of accident. Passengers of the bus also got down and all of them saw that one person was run over by the said bus. Thereafter, the driver was advised to go to the police station and accordingly the driver went to Kakatibari Police Station which was situated at a little distance. Soon after the accident, PW 4 Bhupen Borgohain, one of the nephew of the deceased, went to the police station and lodged an FIR which was registered as Kakatibari PS Case No. 40 of 1996 under Sections 279/304(A)/336 IPC. On receipt of the FIR the police investigated the matter and ultimately filed charge sheet under Section 279/304(A) IPC against the driver of the said vehicle, namely, Sri Dinanath Tipomia and the present petitioner, Abhijit Konwar. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses including the official witnesses and the defence case before the trial court was of total denial.

3. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial court examined the accused persons including the present petitioner under Section 313 Cr PC and finally after hearing the parties convicted both the accused persons under Section 279/304(A)/ 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo RI for three months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.e. to undergo SI for one month under the first count and RI for six months with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- i.e. to undergo SI for two months under the second count. Both the sentences would run consecutively.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial court both the accused persons preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 47(3) of 2002 and the learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record while upheld the judgment of the learned trial court so far the conviction and sentence of the driver, Dinanath Tipomia, but modified the order of conviction relating to the conductor, Abhijit Konwar, i.e. the petitioner herein, by way of setting aside the order of conviction under Section 279 IPC, and upholding the conviction under Section 304(A) IPC and the sentence was also modified, as stated supra.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar, the petitioner preferred the instant criminal revision petition.

6. Mr. Pran, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the trial court as well as the appellate court failed to consider the facts on record and came to a wrong conclusion regarding the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged offence. He further contended that the failure to discharge the duties by a conductor while the offending vehicle is movi