SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. Petitioner impugns judgment dated 07.05.2016 of the Appellate Court, whereby, the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner impugning judgment on conviction dated 29.10.2015 and partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner insofar as it related to order on sentence dated 29.01.2016.

2. Petitioner was convicted of an offence under Sections 304A/279 IPC. The Trial Court had sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 months for the offence under Section 304A IPC and 5 months for the offence under Section 279 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 9,000/- for the two offences respectively. The Appellate Court while deciding the appeal of the petitioner on conviction partly allowed the appeal insofar as the sentence was concerned and reduced the sentence to 9 months for the offence under Section 304A and 2 months for the offence under Section 279 IPC.

3. As per the Nominal Roll of the petitioner dated 21.10.2016, the petitioner has undergone 4 months and 11 days of incarceration as on 19.10.2016 and earned remission of 21 days.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted bail on 21.10.2018, however, there was delay in release of the petitioner and she does not have the exact date when the petitioner was released on bail.

5. On merits, it is contended that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner was guilty of the said offence and both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have erred in not appreciating the same.

6. The case of the prosecution was that on 18.03.2006 at about 11:00/11:15 pm at Pee Jay Enclave, 75 Vijay Block in front of Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi, the petitioner was driving his TATA Indica Car at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and struck against one person, who was crossing the road, thereby, causing serious injuries due to which the said person died in the hospital later.

7. In support of the case, the prosecution, inter-alia, examined two eyewitnesses as PW-1 and PW-2. Both of whom are police officers and were on duty at the police booth near the spot of the incident. PW-1, in his testimony, had stated that he saw a taxi/car of the petitioner coming from ITO side and hit one pedestrian, who was trying to cross the road. PW-2 also in his testimony had stated that he saw one pedestrian crossing at Vikas Marg Zebra Crossing and the offending vehicle came from ITO side and hit the pedestrian. PW-2 deposed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. PW-2 further states that he asked the offending vehicle to stop and the vehicle’s driver stopped.

8. As per the site plan of the spot, the distance between the accident and the place where the witnesses were standing is approximately 40 to 50 feet.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has failed to establish that the petitioner was driving the vehicle at a high speed or rashly or negligently. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that PW-1 has not stated anything about the speed of the vehicle or the manner in which the offending vehicle was being driven. She submits that testimony of PW-2 is that he was driving rashly and negligently. He has not stated as to what was the speed of the offending vehicle or how the same was being driven except for giving his opinion. Further, it is contended that admittedly, the accident took place at a crossing and there is no evidence to show as to what was the condition of the traffic light as to whether it was operational or not. Further, it is contended that the time of the accident is 11:00/11:15 p.m. and in the poor light, from the distance of 40-50 feet, it was not possible for the two witnesses to have seen the pedestrian who was crossing the road so as to testify about the negligence of the petitioner or the lack of contributory negligence on the part of the pedestrian. Further, it i