RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. U Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. BJ Dutta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. None appears for the respondent no.2.

2. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon dated 19.12.2013 in criminal appeal 27/2013 whereby the order of the learned CJM, Morigaon dated 8.7.2013 in GR case 1028/2011 u/s 304(A) of the IPC is upheld.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the respondent no.2 (informant) on 5.11.2011 lodged an ejahar at Mikirbheta Police Station alleging that on 31.10.2011 at about 10.45 AM a Pulsar motorcycle bearing number plate AS-21A-2499 coming from Mikirbheta at a high speed in negligent manner knocked down one Smt. Jamuna Devi from her front side and she sustained grievous injury and was taken to Morigaon Civil Hospital where she succumbed to her injury.

4. On the basis of this ejahar Mikirbheta PS case 191/2011 u/s 279/338/304(A) of the IPC was registered followed by GR case 1028/2011. The police investigated the case and submitted chargesheet under the said Sections of law against the petitioner. On receiving summons petitioner appeared before the learned trial court. The charge was explained to him. He pleaded not guilty and demanded a trial.

5. The prosecution examined six witnesses. Petitioner was examined u/s 313 of the CrPC. The defence did not adduce any evidence. The learned trial court after hearing both sides held the petitioner guilty u/s 279/304(A) of the IPC and sentenced him to s/i for three months u/s 304(A) of the IPC and s/i for two months u/s 279 of the IPC by the order dated 8.7.2013 in GR case 1028/2011. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal.

6. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties set aside the conviction u/s 279 of the IPC and upheld conviction u/s 304(A) of the IPC and directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court within a month to serve the sentence by the impugned order. Hence this revision.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned courts below wrongly appreciated the evidence on record by holding the petitioner guilty u/s 279/304(A) of the IPC as, there was no such evidence about rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the petitioner. Secondly, in their evidence PW2, PW3 and PW5 contradicted each other about the time of the accident and the vehicle involved and so their evidence is unreliable. Thirdly, as per the FIR the incident took place at about 10:45 AM on 31.10.2011 and the victim succumbed to her injury on the same day at the said hospital, whereas the IO(PW7) stated in his evidence that he was informed by the O-C at about 1:00 PM on 30.10.2011 about the death of the victim and then he reached the spot, recorded statement of witnesses, prepared inquest report and seized the motorcycle but no document indicating that the motorcycle was seized was produced by the prosecution and so the evidence of PW7 is also unreliable.

8. Heard the argument put forward by Mr. U Dutta for and on behalf of the petitioner who has led the Court through the evidence on record in support of his contention as stated above. The learned counsel for the state-respondent has however submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the findings of both the forums and it contends that even in absence of specific averments by the witnesses about the rash and negligent driving by the petitioner but the circumstances under which the victim died on the road when the vehicle of the accused hit against her, itself reveals the rash and negligent driving.

9. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and the impugned judgment and order and the evidence on record. It is to be noted that there are three eye-witnessed to the occurrence i.e. 2, 3 and 5 and all of them have given evidence that death of victim Jamuna Devi occurred as soon as she was knocked down by the moto