The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroborating evidence to prove rash and negligent driving, as well as the consideration of the nature and circumstances of the incident in determining the appropriate sentence.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Prabhash Chandra Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Azeemuddin, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

3. This criminal revision application is directed against the Judgment dated 25.05.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chatra in Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court affirmed the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 06.11.2009 passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Chatra in G.R. Case No. 60 of 2006 / T.R. Case No. 467 of 2009 (arising out of Bashishth Nagar P.S. Case No.05/2006 dated 25.01.2006) and dismissed the criminal appeal.

4. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgments are ex-facie perverse which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He submitted that as per the F.I.R., the petitioner had made efforts to stop the vehicle, but the same could not be stopped and the accident had taken place and accordingly, rash and negligent driving could not be proved by the prosecution before the learned trial court. Learned counsel further submitted that in the F.I.R., the number of the vehicle was not mentioned, but subsequently when the vehicle was seized and sent for examination by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the vehicle number was given and as such, the identity of the vehicle is also in dispute. He also submitted that the Doctor has not been examined in the case, although the post-mortem report has been proved by the Investigating Officer of the case. He submitted that the doctor having not been examined, the petitioner could not cross-examine the doctor who had conducted post mortem and the real cause of death could not be brought on record and therefore, the petitioner has been prejudiced. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the case of the prosecution could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the petitioner was entitled to benefit of doubt which was not given by the learned courts below and they have wrongly convicted the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, considering the fact that the offence is of the year 2006 and much time have elapsed since then and the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent and the petitioner has faced the rigorous of the criminal case for a long period, a sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence may be modified and reduced and some fine may be imposed upon the petitioner.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

7. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below after appreciating all the evidences on record. He further submitted that the time, place and the manner of occurrence has been proved by the prosecution. He also submitted that two eye witnesses i.e. P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 who were present at the place of occurrence have fully supported the prosecution case who deposed that the victim had died due to the accident caused by the tractor being driven by the petitioner and as such, there is no dispute that death of the victim was caused due to the motor vehicle accident by the tractor being driven by the petitioner. He also submits that rash and negligent driving has also been proved by the prosecution. He submitted that merely because the petitioner is said to have made attempts to stop the vehicle is not