JUDGMENT :

Through Video Conferencing

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgement/order dated 21.08.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro whereby the learned appellate court has been pleased to dismiss the criminal appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.03.2011 passed in G.R. Case No.596/2006 corresponding to T.R. No. 1888/2011 by the learned S.D.J.M. Bokaro whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to convict the petitioner under Sections 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned court below.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned judgement, has submitted that the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Sections 279/338 of Indian Penal Code and the case was instituted after considerable delay. It was registered on 07.06.2006 and the incident had taken place on 26.05.2006. He has also submitted that the father of the informant who has been examined as P.W. 2 was accompanying the victim of the case and he had not given the vehicle number. He has also submitted that two of the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 were declared hostile and the conviction of the petitioner has been sustained on account of evidence of P.W. 2 – the father of the informant, P.W. 3 – the informant victim himself and P.W. 4. He has submitted that considering the delay in lodging of the First Information Report, the petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt. The learned counsel submits that these aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the learned courts below and accordingly, the impugned judgements cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

5. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the incident is of 26.05.2006 and the petitioner has remained in custody for some time during the pendency of the present revision petition, in as much as, he had surrendered on 19.09.2012 before the learned court below and thereafter, the present case was filed on 04.10.2012 and he was directed to be released on bail vide order dated 10.10.2012 and furnished his bail bond on 17.10.2012. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of about one month. He has also submitted that no minimum sentence as such has been prescribed under Sections 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and considering the fact that the petitioner has faced the rigorous of the criminal case for a long time, some sympathetic view may be taken. He submits that on the date of conviction on 29.03.2011, the petitioner was 24 years of age and it appears that at a tender age, the offence was committed by the petitioner.

Arguments on behalf of the opposite party-State

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and the prosecution case was supported by an independent eye-witness i.e. P.W. 4 who had given the vehicle number, but he did not know the name of the driver, but identified the petitioner. She submits that even the investigating officer of the case has been examined as P.W. 6 who has fully supported the prosecution case. She has submitted that the doctor P.W. 7 has been examined and he has stated that he had examined the