ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Upadhyay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision against the Judgment dated 23.07.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.49/2014 whereby and whereunder the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court was confirmed.

4. The criminal appeal was preferred against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 28.04.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chaibasa in G.R. Case No. 83 of 2010 / T.R. No.63/2014 [arising out of Manjhari (Tantnagar O.P.) P.S. Case No.06/2010] whereby and whereunder the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code, Rigorous Imprisonment for three months under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code, Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the learned courts below have failed to consider that although P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, in their examination-in-chief, have stated that the petitioner was driving the vehicle with which the accident had taken place and immediately after the accident, they became unconscious, but subsequently, they have stated that they came to know in the hospital that the petitioner was driving the vehicle. He submits that the aforesaid is material contradiction and inconsistency in their evidence. He further submits that P.W.- 3, 4, 5 and 6 are hearsay witnesses. The learned counsel submitted that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the petitioner was driving the vehicle and accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is fit to be set aside.

6. On the point of sentence, he further submitted that the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of nearly three months from 25.08.2014 to 20.11.2014 and the present offence is his first offence and as such, if this Court is not inclined to set aside the conviction of the petitioner, a sympathetic view may be taken and the period of sentence of the petitioner may be modified. He submitted that the argument on the point of sentence is without prejudice to the aforesaid arguments on behalf of the petitioner on the merit of the case.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

7. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer and submitted that P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are the injured eye witnesses of the occurrence and they have fully supported the prosecution case that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of the accident and P.W.-8 has established the identity of the vehicle and the driver. He submitted that there are concurrent findings of both the learned courts below and there is limited scope under revisional jurisdiction and as such, there is no perversity in the impugned judgments. He further submitted that the learned courts below have already taken a lenient view and have imposed sentence of one year only under Sections 337 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. He submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathetic view of this court and the sentence passed against the petitioner is fit to be sustained and no interference is called for.

Findings of this Court

8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court finds that a formal F.I.R. was registered as Manjhari (Tantnagar O.P.) P.S. Case No.06/2010 dated 10.02.2010 under Section