The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on the evidence presented by prosecution witnesses to uphold the conviction of the petitioner for rash and negligent driving under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

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

2. Heard learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-State.

3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 06.02.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Appeal No. 73/2009, arising out of the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 28.07.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih in G.R. Case No. 12/05 (Trial No. 439/09).

4. The appellate court confirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and modified and reduced the sentence of Simple Imprisonment for 02 years with fine of Rs.500/- to Simple Imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and confirmed the sentences of Simple Imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337/338 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of the fines, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further one month for each fine and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments of the Petitioner.

5. In course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner confines his arguments only on the point of sentences imposed by the learned appellate court for the offences under Sections 279, 337/338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged occurrence is of the year 2005 and out of the maximum punishment of six months, the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of two and a half months. He also submitted that primarily the case is under Section 304A of the Indian penal Code i.e. rash and negligent driving and the petitioner has faced the rigours of the criminal case for more than 15 years and accordingly, some sympathetic view may be taken.

Arguments of the State.

7. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgements calling for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction.

Findings of this Court

8. The prosecution case as per the fard-beyan of the Informant is that on 03.01.2005 at about 9.30 A.M., one bus bearing No. BHM-8114 overturned at village Dobra Bridge at Bagodar-Saria Road due to rash and negligent driving by its driver and two persons died on the spot and the Informant took the injured persons to Government Hospital, Bagodar and Referral Hospital, Sariya for their treatment.

9. On the basis of the fard-beyan, a formal F.I.R was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of Indian Penal Code and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner under the same sections. On 09.12.2005, the substance of accusation was explained to the petitioner in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 5 witnesses in support of its case. P.W.-1 is Dr. Awadheshwari Prasad Narain Deo, P.W.-2 is Awdhesh Kumar who is the Informant of the case, P.W.-3 is Harinandan Singh who is the Investigating Officer of the case, P.W.-4 is Kamdeo Singh who claimed to be an eye witness to the occurrence and P.W.-5 is Jitan Mandal who has been declared hostile by the prosecution, but he admitted that he had put his signature on the inquest report which was marked as Exhibit- 3/2 and also stated that he did not know on which paper, the police had got his signature. The prosecution also exhibited certain documents. Exhibits- 1 and 1/1 are the post mortem reports of the two deceased persons who died on the spot, Exhibit-2 is the signature of informant on the fard-beyan, Exhibit-3 is inquest report of the deceased Mahavir Mandal, Exhibits-3/1 and 3/2 are the signatures of the