The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and the duty of the court to consider and record special reasons for not invoking its provisions, as well as the corresponding Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

B.P. Katakey, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 5.1.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sibsagar in Crl. Appeal No. 8(3) of 1997 affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 7.7.1997 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sibsagar in GR Case No. 245/95 convicting the petitioner under Section 279/304A of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for one month under Section 279 of the IPC and simple imprisonment for 6 months under Section 304A of the IPC.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.3.1995 when the informant's elder brother Rupeswar Baruati was coming from Sibsagar side on a bicycle on National High Way No. 37, one Maruti car bearing Registration No. AMB 8348 driven by the present revision petitioner hit him near Baruati Gaon, as a result of which Rupeswar fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on his head as well as different parts of the body. Though the injured was admitted to the Sibsagar Civil Hospital and was also treated in Assam Medical College Hospital in Dibrugarh, he succumbed to his injuries in Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh. The first informant Smti. Chenimai Baruoti on 13.3.1995 lodged the first information report to that effect in Gaurisagar Police Station and the Police upon completion of the investigation submitted a charge sheet against the present revision petitioner under Section 279/304A of the IPC. The learned trial court thereafter explained the charge, to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. The learned trial Magistrate on the basis of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, vide judgment dated 7.7.1997 convicted the petitioner under Section 279/304A of the IPC and sentenced him as aforementioned. Being aggrieved the revision petitioner filed Crl Appeal No. 8(3)797 before the learned Sessions Judge and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 5.1.2000 affirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Magistrate. Hence the present Revision petition before this Court.

3. I have heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Singh, learned P.P. Assam.

4. Mr. Sahewalla, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the present petitioner and, therefore, his conviction under Section279/304A cannot be sustained. Further submission of Mr. Sahewalla is that there was only one eye witness, namely, P.W. 1 Chenimai Baruoti the first informant and her testimony also does not support the charge either under Section 279 or Section 304A of the IPC and as such the judgment of conviction and sentence is required to be interfered with in Revision.

5. Mr. B. Singh, learned P.P., Assam supporting the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned courts below has submitted that both the courts below upon perusal of the evidence on record, more particularly the evidence of the eye witness convicted the petitioner under Section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, this Court in exercise of the revisional power may not interfere with the said judgment of conviction.

6. I have perused the judgment passed by the learned courts below as well as the records pertaining to G.R. case No. 245 of 95 and Crl. appeal No. 8(3) of 1997. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the present revision petitioner has examined the prosecution witnesses, which includes the first informant, that is sister of the deceased, the Doctor who performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased as well as the investigating officer. It is evident from the evidence on record, more particularly the P.W.1, witness to the occurrence, that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, endangering the human life and thereby causing death by negligence. The defence during cross-examinat