I.A. Ansari, J.

1. By judgment and order, dated 07.01.2004, passed in GR Case No. 486 of 1999, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, the accused-petitioner was convicted under Sections 304A and 279 IPC and sentenced to suffer, for his conviction under Section 304A IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay, for his conviction under Section 279 IPC a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. By judgment and order, dated 28.06.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karimganj, in Criminal Appeal No. 4(1)/2004, while the conviction of the accused-petitioner, under Section 304A IPC and 279 IPC has been maintained, the sentence of imprisonment for the accused-petitioner's conviction under Section 304A IPC has been reduced to 6 (six) months. With the help of the present revision petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the appellate judgment aforementioned, which has, while maintaining the conviction, has modified the sentence in respect of the offence under Section 304A IPC to the extent as indicated above. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus:

On 24.9.2009, at about 10.30 A.M., when Matilal Rabidas (since deceased) was proceeding, on foot, to Nilambazar, a bus, bearing registration No. AMT 276, came from the opposite direction, driven by the accused-petitioner in a negligent manner, knocked down Matilal Rabidas and killed him on the spot. On the First Information Report having been lodged about the occurrence by Bijoy Rabidas, son of the deceased victim, a case under Sections 279/427/304A IPC was registered against the present accused petitioner. During the course of investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, drew a sketch map of the place of occurrence, held inquest over the dead body of the victim, recorded statements of the witnesses and, then, submitted charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner under Sections 279/427/304A IPC.

2. During trial, when particulars of offences, under Sections 279/427/304A IPC, were explained to the accused-petitioner, the accused-petitioner pleaded not guilty thereto.

3. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 7 (seven) witnesses including the Medical Officer and Investigating Officer. The accused petitioner was, then, examined Under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and, in his examination aforementioned, he denied that he had committed the offences, which were alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being, in brief, thus: When the accused, driving the bus, came near the place of occurrence, he found that a truck was lying parked on his left side of the road and the accused had to come to his right side of the road and as soon as he came to the right side of the road, he found a cow on the road and as he wanted to save the cow, he happened to hit and knock down the said deceased. The accused has, thus, not committed any offence inasmuch as the incident was an accident and the accident took place for reasons beyond his control.

4. Having, however, found the accused guilty of commission of offences under Sections 304A and 279 IPC, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentences against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences, passed against him, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal, which, as already indicated above, has been dismissed by modifying the sentence passed against him. Hence, the accused has, now, come to this Court with the present revision.

5. I have-heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. K. Munir, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

6. While considering the present revision, it needs to be noted that there is no dispute that Matilal Rabidas died on being knocked down by the bus, which the accused petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was driving. However, there is no eye-witness t