JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code' hereinafter) is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.2.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Didwana (for short 'the Appellate Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1999 (15 of 1997) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 30.5.1997 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Didwana (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 161 of 1996 was dismissed. The Trial Court by order dated 30.5.1997, convicted the petitioner for the offences under Secs. 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC and; two years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 4000/- for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, in default of payment of fine of each of the offences noticed above, further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. On the fine being deposited, the same was directed to be paid to father of deceased as compensation. The appellate Court, by well reasoned judgment, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant revision petition are that PW 1 Chatra Ram lodged a first information report Ex.P/1 on 11.11.1996 at 5.45 PM, inter alia, alleging therein that on 11.11.1996 at about 4.30 PM, his nephew Madan Lal son of Bhera Ram aged 14 years was going towards his house from market. He was walking at left side of the road, at that relevant time, a mini Tata Truck model No. 407 bearing No. GJ1-U-6539 came from opposite direction, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit Madan Lal as a result whereof Madan Lal suffered injuries on the legs and head and succumbed to the injuries instantaneously; the occurrence was witnessed by Hanuman Ram and Prithvi Raj, they got the vehicle stopped; it was found that petitioner Sita Ram was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident and thereafter, the petitioner ran away leaving the truck on the spot. On this report, the investigation ensued. On this report, the investigation ensued. The truck was seized on the spot and autopsy on dead body of Madan Lal was conducted and after site was inspected, a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act was served on the registered owner of the vehicle and after completion of usual investigation, a challan was filed against the petitioner for the offences under Secs. 279 and 304-A IPC. The petitioner produced as many as 14 witnesses and documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/12. The petitioner made statement under Section 313 of the Code, denied the allegations and appeared as witness in defence i.e. DW 3 and produced DW 1 Hari Ram and DW 2 Banshi Lal. 3. In the instant case, there are two eye-witnesses viz. PW 3 and PW 4 Prithvi Raj and Hanuman Ram respectively of the occurrence, who were promptly named in the first information report lodged by PW 1 Chatra Ram. PW 3 Prithvi Raj categorically stated that at 4.30 PM while he alongwith PW 4 Hanuman Ram was going towards the house of Bhera Ram, at that relevant time, Madan Lal deceased was going ahead of them i.e. at the distance of 20-25 paces away and at that time, a mini truck came from opposite direction at a great speed and hit Madan Lal, who was on his correct side of the road. By seeing the accident, they rushed to the spot and lifted the child but found the child dead due to accident. The vehicle, which was driven by petitioner Sita Ram was got stopped. He further stated that Sita Ram is known to them for last 10 years as he is nephew of their village. Madan Lal was taken to hospital, where Doctors declared him dead. This witness has categorically stated the vehicle No. 6539 Model No. 407 having registration of Gujarat and its colour was green. This witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but his testimony has remained unshaken. On the contrary, he stated that they saw the petitioner in the vehicle on the spot. The truck hit the deceased with its front wheel. PW 4 Hanuman Ram, who at the relevant time was going towards the house of Bhera Ram, has made similar statement.The statements of both these witnesses are consistent to that of first information report Ex.P/1 lodged by PW 1 Chatra Ram. The truck hit the deceased with its front wheel. PW 4 Hanuman Ram, who at the relevant time was going towards the house of Bhera Ram, has made similar statement.The statements of both these witnesses are consistent to that of first information report Ex.P/1 lodged by PW 1 Chatra Ram. PW 5 Prem Chand and PW 6 Tikam Chand are the witnesses to the site map Ex.P/3, Fard Surat Hal Lash Ex.P/4, Punchnama Ex.P/6 and seizure memo Ex.P/7. These witnesses categorically stated that the truck in question having light green (pigeon) colour was seized by the police on the spot. These witnesses proved the site map Ex.P/3, Fard Surat Hal Lash Ex.P/4, Punchnama Ex.P/6 and seizure memo Ex.P/7. The statements of these witnesses are fully corroborated with the statements of PW 3 and 4. These witnesses clearly stated that the truck having Gujarat registration No. 6539 and its colour was light green (pigeon) was seized by the police on the spot. PW 7 and PW 8 are the witnesses to the Punchnama. PW 9 has proved the post mortem of deceased Ex.P/8. He has stated that the cause of death of deceased was injuries to the brain and due to shock. PW 11 Ram Narayan, the Investigating Officer has proved the various documents and his investigation including the site map, site inspection note, seizure of the truck and notice under section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He has stated that during investigation, it was found that due to rash and negligent act of petitioner, the said accident occurred resulting in death of Madan Lal. PW 14 Bhanwar Lal is the registered owner of the truck in question and in reply to the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he stated that at the relevant time, his son Sita Ram was driving the truck. The identity of the petitioner was not disputed during the trial. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that two witnesses PW 3 and PW 4 stated the colour of the truck i.e. green, whereas the Investigating Officer PW-11 stated that it was pigeon colour. Other witnesses PW 5 and PW 6 categorically stated that it was light green (pigeon colour). 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that two witnesses PW 3 and PW 4 stated the colour of the truck i.e. green, whereas the Investigating Officer PW-11 stated that it was pigeon colour. Other witnesses PW 5 and PW 6 categorically stated that it was light green (pigeon colour). Mere slight discrepancy in naming the colour cannot be a ground to disbelieve unimpeachable and convincing evidence of PW 3 and PW 4, who witnessed the occurrence and more particularly in the instant case, a prompt first information report was lodged by PW 1 Chatra Ram, wherein these two witnesses have specifically been named as the witnesses to the occurrence, therefore, their presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. Nothing has been shown as to how these two witnesses have any interest in the deceased or his family member. On the contrary, the accused being nephew of the village, is known to these witnesses and, therefore, there was no reason for them to otherwise implicate the petitioner. The petitioner produced two witnesses in defence and got himself examined as DW 3. 5. DW 1 Hari Ram stated that the accident took place with a big truck and the driver of that truck ran away and there were so many persons gathered on the spot and got a mini truck stopped; driver of the mini truck also ran away. DW 2 Banshi Lal stated that a boy came running and hit a big truck and the driver of that truck ran away with the truck; a mini truck got stopped and the driver of the mini truck ran away but he was not the petitioner Sita Ram. Petitioner himself appeared as DW 3 and stated that he came to know that accident has taken place by his truck, whereas the accident took place by some other truck. The defence taken by the petitioner through his defence witnesses is not reliable for the reason that no such question was put to any of the prosecution witnesses more particularly the eye-witnesses. The defence witnesses stated that Sita Ram was not the driver of the mini truck, which caused the accident, whereas the petitioner himself has not disputed being the driver of the mini truck which caused the accident. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any material evidence, which the Courts below failed to consider. The defence witnesses stated that Sita Ram was not the driver of the mini truck, which caused the accident, whereas the petitioner himself has not disputed being the driver of the mini truck which caused the accident. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any material evidence, which the Courts below failed to consider. On the contrary, every piece of evidence has been properly appreciated by the Trial Court and has been re-appreciated by the appellate Court. The concurrent finding arrived at by both the Courts below holding the petitioner guilty cannot be said to have been suffering from any error, illegality or perversity. 6. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being a young person and the quantum of sentence awarded is exorbitantly high and he has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about three month, therefore, the sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the end of justice would be met if the amount of fine to be paid to the father of deceased as compensation is enhanced and substantive sentence is reduced. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that due to reckless and negligent act of the petitioner, a life of a boy of 14 years has come to an end, therefore, sentence awarded by the Courts below does not call for any interference. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The occurrence is of 1996. The petitioner has faced protracted trial for almost 10 years, in appeal before the appellate Court and revision before this Court. He has already undergone about three months imprisonment. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to the period of one year and the fine is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- so as to compensate the father of deceased PW 2 Bhera Ram. 8. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Secs. 279 and 304-A IPC, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of one year and the fine is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo two months' imprisonment. 8. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Secs. 279 and 304-A IPC, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of one year and the fine is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo two months' imprisonment. On depositing the fine, the same be paid to PW 2 Bhera Ram father of deceased.The application seeking suspension of sentence stands disposed of.Revision partly allowed. *******