The judgment establishes the importance of eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and considerations of age and time spent in custody in determining the conviction and sentencing in cases involving rash and negligent driving resulting in death.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

2. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the judgment dated 12.06.2001 passed in Criminal Appeal No.53 of 1996 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka whereby and where under the learned appellate court below has upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.07.1996 passed by S.D.J.M, Dumka in Masalia P.S. Case No.18 of 1992 corresponding to G.R. No.374 of 1992 (T.R. No.248 of 1996) whereby and where under the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial court to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years each for each of the offences punishable under Section 338 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code and it was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. The brief facts of this case is that the petitioner while driving a truck in a rash and negligent manner, caused the death of the son of the informant in a road accident. After investigation of the case, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and consequent upon his pleading not guilty to the charges, he was put to trial.

4. During the trial, the prosecution altogether examined six witnesses and however no witness was examined by the defence. The P.W.2 is the sole eyewitness to the occurrence and he has supported the case of the prosecution by deposing in detail about the rash and negligent manner of driving of the truck by the revision petitioner.

5. After considering the evidence in the record, the learned trial court below being the S.D.J.M., Dumka held the revision-petitioner guilty for having committed the offences punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as already indicated above in this judgment.

6. Against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, this revision-petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.53 of 1996 before the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka and vide the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka dismissed the appeal as after independent assessment of the evidence in the record, the learned Sessions Judge held that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish all the 3 charges faced by the revision-petitioner in the trial beyond reasonable doubt.

7. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma- learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the conviction is based on no evidence. It is next submitted that the learned courts below could not appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper perspective. It is then submitted that though the P.W-2 has not stated in his Fardbeyan recorded by the police that he is an eye-witness to the occurrence but in the court he claimed to be an eyewitness to the occurrence. Hence, the learned court below ought not have relied upon the testimony of the P.W-2 to come to a conclusion that the evidence in the record establishes the charges against the revision-petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. It is next submitted that the revision-petitioner is aged about 64 years and he was in custody for about 40 days after dismissal of his appeal by the appellate court; before he was granted bail by this Court in this revision application and after the cancellation of his bail by this court in this revision application, he surrendered in the trial court on 20.10.2021 and till today he has been in custody. Hence, it is submitted that, in case his conviction is sustained, his substantive sentence be reduced to the period he has already undergone in custody; keeping in view the fact that he has been facing the rigors of criminal trial since 16.04.1992 and in lieu thereof fine may be imposed. Hence, it is submitted that the conviction and the sentence of the revision-petitioner as made by the impugned judgment of conviction returned by bo