JUDGMENT 1. - This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr. P. C. has been filed against the appellate judgment of the learned Sessions judge, Churu dated May 13, 1980 where by the learned first appellate court has maintained the conviction of the accused petitioner under section 304 A I. P. C. recorded by fine learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu vide his judgement dated March 23, 1979. However, the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs, 500/-imposed on the accused petitioner by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Churu was reduced to three months rigorous imprisonment together with a fine, of Rs 100/-. It is against this order that this revision has been preferred. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision briefly stated are that the accused petitioner was found driving a car taxi bearing No, RJT 121 rashly as well as negligently. His taxi was hired to carry a dead body from Jaipur to Hanumangarh. When the taxi was passing by the town of Snrdarshahar, it knocked down a boy aged 8 years who died instantaneously. The car was being driven so rashly that it stopped at a distance of 40-50 yards from the place of occurrence after being taken into the kaccha. The accused took, the car to the police station, because the villagers started collecting on the place of occurrence and so fearing an attack on him by the villagers he went and reported the matter to the police The police reached the place of occurrence and the body of the boy was recovered and removed from that place and his postmortem was conducted and after investigation the challan was filed in the court of learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Churu, who after trial convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid against which the appeal was filed and the same was decided by the learned Sessions judge as aforesaid. 3. Mr. S. K. Goyal appearing for the petitioner has submitted that it is actually a case of substitution of the accused. The car taxi was being driven by a Sardar, but this accused who was a co-passenger, has been falsely implicated in this criminal case. 3. Mr. S. K. Goyal appearing for the petitioner has submitted that it is actually a case of substitution of the accused. The car taxi was being driven by a Sardar, but this accused who was a co-passenger, has been falsely implicated in this criminal case. He has not challenged the fact that the car knocked down a boy who died instantaneously He has also not challenged the finding of the learned lower court that the car was being driven rashly and negligently which is clear from the fact that it stopped at a distance of 40-50 yards from the place where it knocked down a boy, as is clear from the site plan Ex. P. 4. Both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that this was the accused who was driving the car taxi at the relevant time. Mr. Goyal took me through the statements the witnesses and requested me to re-appreciate the evidence. Probably this is not the scope of the revision. However, he has submitted that both the courts mis-directed themselves in so far as they have misread the evidence and mis-interpreted it and that has caused failure of justice and so the powers of this court be exercised to grant acquittal to the accused. In view of the submission made by MR. Goyal. I have critically examined the statements of the witnesses recorded during trial. The first three witnesses have of course stated before the trial court that some sardar was driving the car. They have not disclosed the name as to who was that sardar. These very witnesses in their earlier statements in police have stated that this very Hari Prasad was driving the car from whom they hired the taxi and it was he who was driving it from Jaipur, but they have disowned those statements without ascribing any reason and so their court statements cannot be relied. I, therefore, feel that the learned lower court was perfectly justified in holding that the accused was driving the car at the relevant time on the basis of the statements of P.W.. I, therefore, feel that the learned lower court was perfectly justified in holding that the accused was driving the car at the relevant time on the basis of the statements of P.W.. 6 Rewat Singh who is an eye witness of the occurrence and he has categorically stated that the car at the relevant time was being driven by this very accused when he identified at the relevant time, He identified him in the court also and he has categorically stated that the car was being driven by this accused who is present in the court. He was not asked a single question in cross-examination about it. He is the sole independent eye witness who has been examined by the prosecution in addition to those three persons who were the occupants of the car. When no cross-examination has been made with this witness about these assertions made by him in his examination in chief, it has to be presumed that the defence was not in a position to challenge the testimony of this witness. 4. The accused himself has reported the matter to the police. Mr. Goyal has submitted that when a confessional statement has been made, by any accused before the police while lodging the FIR, the entire FIR has to be discarded except that portion of it which is saved by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In this respect a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1966 SC. 119 ) was relied upon It is true that the FIR has been lodged by this very accused and that contains confessional statements and so it cannot be taken into consideration, except the portion covered under the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He has stated in the FIR that it was he who has brought the car to the police station from the place where dead body of the boy was lying. This much of the statement is admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He has further stated that the dead body of the boy who has been knocked down by the car is lying at a particular place. That dead body was recovered from that very place. This much of the statement is admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He has further stated that the dead body of the boy who has been knocked down by the car is lying at a particular place. That dead body was recovered from that very place. Even that statement is admissible in evidence, because the dead body has been recovered on his information from the place pointed out by him existing on the main road. I, therefore, feel that much of the statement which is mentioned here after is admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act:- " eSa Mj ds ekjs VsDlh LVkVZ djds ljnkj 'kgj dh rjQ c<+k yk'k ekSds ij iM+h gSA eSa dkj VsDlh ysdj Fkkuk ij bRryk djus vk;k gwWaA " This much of the statement in verifiable on facts as it was he who brought the car to the police station by driving it and also no the basis of the discovery of the dead body of the boy made on his information and to this extent his evidence is admissible and rest of the contents of the FIR are not admissible except his signatures on the FIR. Thus even on the re-appreciation of the evidence as suggested by Mr, Goyal I am convinced that both the learned lower courts were perfectly justified in holding the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. 5. Now, so far as sentence is concerned, the occurrence took place on May 17, 1971. The accused has remained in custody initially from May 17,1971 to May 20 1971 i.e. for 4 days and then from May 13, 1980 to May 23, 1980 i.e. for 11 days after appeal of the accused was dismissed by the learned first appellate court and till he was released from custody under the orders of this court, Thus he has remained in custody for a period of 15 days. After lapse of 15 years it will not be just and proper to send him back to the custody and the ends of justice would be met if the accused is sentenced for a period of his custody and the sentence of fine is enhanced. 6. I, therefore partially accept this revision, maintain the conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 304-A IPC. 6. I, therefore partially accept this revision, maintain the conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 304-A IPC. However, his sentence of 3 months rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period of his custody, but the amount of fine of Rs. 100/- is raised to Rs 2000/-. In default of payment of this amount of fine, he shall further undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. Mr. Goyal prays for 2 months time to deposit this amount of fine. Time prayed for is granted. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu is directed to effect the arrest of the accused to undergo the sentence imposed against him in default of payment of fine, if he fails to deposit the fine within the aforesaid period.Revision partly allowed. *******