Judgment S. C. MITAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the judgement of Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dt. 24-6-86 whereby the judgement and conviction passed by Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar dt. 10-3-83 has been confirmed and the petitioners appeal has been dismissed. The petitioner has been convicted under Section. 279, I. P. C. and. sentenced to undergo three months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and under Section 304-A, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. or in default to undergo 6 months R. I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ( 2 ) TO appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, brief facts may be stated as under :shri Ramswaroop son of Shri Bagaram Bisnoi resident of STK lodged a report on 21-10-77 at 3 p. m. at Police Station Raisinghnagar that he and his brother Ramchandra, Dulichand, Chhoturam and Dhannaram who came to see Dashehara in Raisinghnagar Mandir at 2. 45 p. m. , was talking to Hansraj Tailor at the shop of Chandraprakash on the Station Road. At that time, Chhoturam was coming from the hotel of Shivchand after taking tea who was hit by a jeep driven by the petitioner at a very high speed with rashness and negligently. The petitioner did not stop the jeep and drove away fast towards the Court. Shri Chhoturam was injured on head. He was taken to the hospital but died of the injuries in the accident. A case was registered under Section 279/337, I. P. C. and converted to S. 304-A, I. P. C. and after investigation, challan was filed against one Devendra Kumar @ Devendra Singh son of Shri Shyam Singh Rajput resident of Raisinghnagar. The police did not file challan against the petitioner. On 23-3-78, accusation of the offence under Section 304-A was stated to the accused Devendra Kumar who denied to have committed the offence. The prosecution produced its evidence and examined PW 1 Ram Swaroop on 13-3-80 in which he clearly stated that the petitioner Kanwar Singh son of Jaswantsingh Jatsikh resident of 12 PS was driving the jeep rashly and negligently at the time of accident and hit his younger brother Chhotutam. The prosecution produced its evidence and examined PW 1 Ram Swaroop on 13-3-80 in which he clearly stated that the petitioner Kanwar Singh son of Jaswantsingh Jatsikh resident of 12 PS was driving the jeep rashly and negligently at the time of accident and hit his younger brother Chhotutam. He also deposed in the statement that he did not give any "teetamba statement" i. e. further statement during the investigation to the police and the police recorded such statements Ex. P-4 in order to save the petitioner and to implicate Devendra Kumar. It may be mentioned here that PW 1 Ramswaroop also submitted an application on 6-2-80 before his statement was recorded on 13-3-80, that the charges have been framed against Shri Devendra Kumar, but, infact, petitioner Kanwar Singh was driving the jeep and caused the accident but the police did not submit the challan against him. It was prayed in the application that. the proceedings be initiated against Kanwarsingh. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner by an order dt. 27-3-80. The accused-petitioner Kanwar Singh appeared in the Court and the trial proceeded against Devendra Kumar and Kanwarsingh. During the course of trial, the learned Magistrate dropped the proceedings under Section 258, I. P. C. against Devendra Kumar by order dt. 4-10-82 on the ground that there was no incriminating evidence at all against him. On completion of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar passed the impugned judgement convicting the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304 -A, I. P. C. and passed the sentence also as stated above. ( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the statements of witnesses and evidence on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Shri Kanwar Singh has been falsely implicated in this case because he is the owner of the jeep. During the investigation it was found that Devendra Singh was driving the jeep and the police submitted challan against Devendra Singh. Cognizance has been taken against the petitioner on the statement of informant Ramswaroop PW 1. It is submitted that the prosecution completely reversed its case from the allegation that the jeep was being driven by Devendra Singh to the allegation now that the petitioner Kanwar Singh was driving the jeep. During investigation it was found that Devendra Singh was driving the jeep. It is submitted that the prosecution completely reversed its case from the allegation that the jeep was being driven by Devendra Singh to the allegation now that the petitioner Kanwar Singh was driving the jeep. During investigation it was found that Devendra Singh was driving the jeep. There are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses from the statements u/s. 161, Cr. P. C. and therefore reliance cannot be placed on such statements. Independent witnesses Chandra Prakash and Hans Raj had also seen the occurrence who have not been examined by the prosecution. It is further submitted that SHO Ram Swaroop PW 4 who investigated the case has deposed that he arrested Devendra Singh and submitted challan against him. Therefore, it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and he should have been acquitted on this count alone. ( 4 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgements. It is argued that the charges under Sections 279 and 304-A, I. P. C. have been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the statements of eye-witnesses Ram Swaroop PW 1, Ramchandra PW 2 Dulichand PW 3, and Dhannaram PW 5. It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner Kanwar Singh was driving the jeep and caused this accident by rash and negligent driving and deceased Chhoturam died of the injuries sustained in the accident. ( 5 ) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival arguments and I have also perused the record SHO Ramswaroop recorded Teetambas statements i. e. further statements of the witnesses Ramchandra son of Bagaram, Dulichand son of Bararam and Dhannaram son of Bagaram on 3-2-78 after about three and a half months frown the date of occurrence dt. 21-10-77 which have been exhibited as Ex. D-1, D-3 and D-4. In these statements a turn to the case was given by the investigating Officer that Debu @ Devendra Singh was driving the jeep. But the Investigating Officer had recorded the statements of Ramchandra and Dhannaram after two days i. e. 23-10-77 which have been exhibited D-2 and D-5 under Section 161 of Cr. P. C. , in which the witnesses clearly stated that the petitioner-accused Kanwar Singh was driving the vehicle. investigating Officer also recorded Teetambas statement on 11-12-77 of Ramswaroop son of Shri Bagaram which has been exhibited as P-4. P. C. , in which the witnesses clearly stated that the petitioner-accused Kanwar Singh was driving the vehicle. investigating Officer also recorded Teetambas statement on 11-12-77 of Ramswaroop son of Shri Bagaram which has been exhibited as P-4. Thus in the statements of the eyewitnesses only two days after the occurrence they have clearly stated that the petitioner-Kanwarsingh was driving the jeep. I agree with the appreciation of the evidence done by the learned judicial Magistrate that the Investigating Officer tried to deliberately give the turn to the case that instead of Kanwar Singh jeep was being driven by Devendra Singh, there does not appear any reason for recording further statements after such a long time. All the eye-witnesses have clearly stated on oath that they did not give any further statement and did not state that Devendra Singh was driving the jeep. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly believed the statements of the above witnesses given in the Court and the further statements Exs. D-l, D-3 and D-4 have been rightly disbelieved and all the cotradictions taken from these statements do not in any manner affect the credibility of above named eye-witnesses. Learned trial Court has also made remarks against Investigating Officer about his conduct during the investigation and for completely changing, the version of the eyewitnesses under Section 161, Cr. P. C. by recording Teetambas statement in order to save the petitioner, Learned trial Court has rightly observed that the matter needs an inquiry against the Investigating Officer. ( 6 ) I find the statements of above witnesses wholly reliable on the point that the petitioner was, infact, driving the jeep rashly and negligently and hit Chhoturam and did not stop the jeep even after the accident and drove away, fast towards the Court. Chhoturam died of the injuries received in the accident. Chandra Prakash and Hansraj did not witness the incident and therefore they were not produced. by the prosecution. Hence, their non-examination is immaterial and no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. I do not agree that any benefit of doubt should have been given to the petitioner on account of above prosecution witnesses evidence. It is not every contradiction or inconsistency in the prosecution witnesses that may entitle the accused for the benefit of doubt. Hence, their non-examination is immaterial and no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. I do not agree that any benefit of doubt should have been given to the petitioner on account of above prosecution witnesses evidence. It is not every contradiction or inconsistency in the prosecution witnesses that may entitle the accused for the benefit of doubt. It is enjoined upon the Court to appreciate the evidence on record according to the established cardinal principles laid down for the evaluation of the evidence. The Court has to shift the chaff from the grain and to disengage the truth from the falsehood. There is bound to occur contradiction and inconsistency in the statements of the witnesses with the passage of time or for any other reasonable cause but on account of this, by itself, benefit of doubt cannot be extended to the accused. The benefit of doubt should be reasonable and due to such evidence of the prosecution that it does not come up to standard of such proof which rules out the innocence of the accused or the defence produced by the accused is highly probable or plausible so that the version of the defence may also be true. But if on the appreciation of the evidence on record definite conclusion can be arrived at by the Court then there does not arise any ground to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused on the basis of some contradictions or inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses. In the instant case, it is proved by the statements of eye-witnesses that the petitioner was driving the jeep at the time of accident. His rash and negligent act has also been proved. Learned trial Court has also dismissed the defence evidence and has rightly rejected on valid reasons. There is no ground to disturb the concurrent findings of Courts below. Hence the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A, I. P. C. deserves to be maintained. ( 7 ) IT was argued on the point of sentence that the petitioner has remained in jail for 9 days and the incident took place on 21-10-77 i. e. more than 18 years have elapsed. It is urged that the substantive sentence may be reduced to already undergone. ( 7 ) IT was argued on the point of sentence that the petitioner has remained in jail for 9 days and the incident took place on 21-10-77 i. e. more than 18 years have elapsed. It is urged that the substantive sentence may be reduced to already undergone. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed it and also argued that the fine should be adequately enhanced to award compensation to the parents of the deceased. I have considered on the point of the sentence and I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that substantive sentence should be reduced to already undergone but at the same time parents of the deceased Chhoturam should be adequately compensated by the petitioner. I deem it proper that the petitioner should give Rs. 10,000/- by way of fine. ( 8 ) IN the result, revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A, I. P. C. under the impugned judgements is hereby maintained. Sentence of imprisonment is reduced to already undergone on both counts. Sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence u/s. 279, I. P. C. is enhanced and the petitioner is sentenced to pay the fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. Similarly the sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 304-A is enhanced and the petitioner is sentenced to pay the fine of Rupees. 9,000/ -. The petitioner shall undergo one months S. I and 6 months S. I. in default of payment of fine for the above offences respectively. The petitioner is given three months time to deposit the fine. Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- out of the fine deposited in the Court shall be paid to the mother and Shri Bagaram the father of the deceased Chhoturam. Petition Partly allowed.