The court emphasized the importance of evidence from eyewitnesses and the owner of the vehicle in establishing the identity of the driver and the nature of the accident, while also highlighting that the non-examination of the investigating officer did not prejudice the prosecution case.

JUDGMENT

1. This revisional application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 02.06.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Appeal No. 7(1) of 2007 whereunder the learned Sessions Judge partly upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 07.02.2007 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. GR 198 of 2004.

2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. S. Choudhury who has appeared on behalf of learned counsel, Mr. B. Deb for the petitioner and learned P.P., Mr. A. Ghosh for the State respondent.

3. Prosecution case is that on 03.04.2004 at about 2.45 pm a Maruti van, bearing registration No. TR-01-G-0223 being driven most rashly and negligently, while passing through Assam-Agartala Road at Khayerpur (Dalura Drop Gate), knocked down a person, namely Binoy Majumder who was riding his bicycle and also knocked down three school girls, namely Sangita Paul, Meenakshi Paul and Pratima Paul in the roadside and thereafter the driver left the vehicle in the roadside and fled away from the spot.

3.1. Immediately after the occurrence police officer from Ranirbazar P.S. appeared at the spot and one Kajal Das lodged an FIR which was recorded by police officer and accordingly Ranirbazar P.S. Case No. 12 of 2004 under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC was registered against the driver of the Maruti van vehicle bearing No. TR-01-G-0223.

3.2. After investigation police submitted charge sheet against the accused petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and accordingly cognizance was taken and in course of trial the accused petitioner was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.3. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 12 witnesses and thereafter accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and in his turn accused declined to adduce any defence evidence.

3.4. At the end of trial learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the accused petitioner guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(rupees five thousand) and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months under Section 304A of IPC. Further he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-(rupees one thousand) under Section 279 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for ten days.

3.5. Aggrieved, the accused petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 7(1) of 2007 in the Court of Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala and after hearing learned Sessions Judge while upholding the judgment and order of conviction has held that the petitioner cannot be separately sentenced under Section 279 of IPC in view of the provisions of Section 71 of IPC since the accused was already found guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and therefore he set aside the order of sentence under Section 279 of IPC and convicted the accused petitioner only under Section 304A of IPC and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year.

3.6. Aggrieved, the present revisional application is filed.

4. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. in a case of revision this Court is required to see the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment/order passed by the lower Courts and the regularity of the proceedings conducted by the lower Courts. This Court is not generally required to meticulously examine the evidence on record and re-appreciate the same unless it is shown that there is perversity in the appreciation of the evidence.

5. Keeping in mind the settled principle of law let us now consider the points raised by learned counsel of the petitioner at the time of argument.

5.1. It is argued by learned counsel, Mr. Choudh