U.B. Saha, J.

1. The judgment and order dated 4.2.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Appeal No. 26 (3) of 2003 upholding the judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Agartala, West Tripura dated 20.6.2003 passed in Case No. GR 889 of 2001 whereby the Petitioner has been convicted under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') and sentenced to suffer S.I. for one month and R.I. for six months respectively with direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently, is under challenge in this revision petition.

2. Heard Mr. DC Roy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Respondent.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.10.2001 at about 5.30 a.m. when the Petitioner was driving TR-01-A-3083 (Jeep) rashly and negligently with 10/12 passengers towards Rangmala met with an accident at Kanak Choumuhani, as a result of which one of the passengers namely, Suvarani Debbarma sustained serious injuries. She was taken to Bisramganj Hospital and from there to G.B. Hospital where she died. Stating the aforesaid facts one Sukesh Debbarma lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Bisramganj Outpost. Upon receipt of the said FIR police registered a case being Bishalgarh P.S. Case No. 106/2001 under Sections 279 and 304A of the Code. The Petitioner surrendered before the I/O. of the case on 02.11.2001. Upon investigation, the I/O. of the case Shri Kiran Kumar Tripura (P.W.9) submitted charge sheet under the aforesaid sections. The accused-Petitioner was examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. Defense adduced none as its case was of total denial. On completion of examination of witnesses, the accused Petitioner was examined by the learned Magistrate under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure where he stated that he did not drive the vehicle at the time of accident and one Mangal Debbarma was the driver of the said vehicle. He also did not admit that he surrendered before the I/O.

5. The points arose for decision before the learned trial court were whether the accused-Petitioner was the driver of the Commander Jeep, which caused the accident and consequent to his negligent driving the said Sova Rani Debbarma died. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, considering mainly the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.9, taking note of Exbt.6 and the evidence of the passengers who were in the vehicle at the relevant time, i.e. P.W.s. 3, 4, 5 and 6, the learned trial court convicted the accused-Petitioner and sentenced him as stated supra.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class dated 20.6.2003, the accused-Petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 26(3) of 2003 wherein the learned Counsel for the accused-Petitioner agitated, inter alia, that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable shadow of doubt that on the relevant date and time the Appellant was driving the offending jeep and the learned trial court convicted the Appellant on the basis of the evidence of P.W.2, Shri Bhagaban Debbarma, owner of the jeep as well as the father of the Appellant without considering his evidence in cross. The learned appellate court upon hearing the appeal dismissed the same and affirmed the judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class and directed the accused-Petitioner to surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class on 01.3.2004 to suffer the sentence.

7. Being not satisfied with the judgment dated 4.2.2004 passed by the learned appellate court affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,