JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Rajiv Lochan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pandey, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-State.

3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 11.04.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 117/2011 whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 18.05.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 640 of 2002/Trial No. 136 of 2011 (arising out of Govindpur P.S. Case No. 36/2002 dated 12.03.2002) has been affirmed and the criminal appeal has been dismissed.

4. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 304A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, Simple Imprisonment for six months under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for six months under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below regarding rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, but the fact remains that the date of the incident is 12.03.2002 and the present age of the petitioner is about 70 years and he has already remained in custody for some period during pendency of the criminal revision petition. He submitted that considering the aforesaid aspects of the case, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence of the petitioner may be modified and limited to the period already undergone in judicial custody by imposing some fine amount.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

6. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, submitted that there was complete lack of care on the part of the petitioner while driving the truck which was being driven at the speed of 40 Kms. per hour at the busy place on the road. He further submitted that after the accident, the petitioner ran away from the spot, although he was identified by the eye witnesses to the occurrence. He also submitted that the learned courts below have already taken a lenient view in the matter while sentencing the petitioner for a period of six months under each section and all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently and therefore, the sentences of the petitioner do not require any reduction.

Findings of this Court

7. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and going through the impugned judgments and the lower court records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the Informant namely, Md. Manjoor Alam alleging inter-alia that on 12.03.2002 at about 05.30 P.M., at Village- Jangalpur, P.S. Govindpur, District- Dhanbad, the Informant alongwith his younger brother namely, Md. Maksood Alam @ Pappu was coming with Motorcycle No. JH-10A-3544 from village pond side and his brother was crossing the road with the motorcycle on foot, then a truck bearing No. BRW-7423 driven by its driver namely, Md. Hanif (the petitioner) in rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle and crushed his brother. The motorcycle got entangled with the truck and therefore, the truck was stopped, but the petitioner ran away from the spot and his brother expired at the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by several villagers.

8. On the basis of the fard-beyan of the informant, the case was registered as Govindpur P.S. Case No. 36/2002 dated 12.03.2002 under Sections 279, 304A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased and sent t