JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. The judgment and order dated 22.11.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Appeal No. 21 (2) 2002 affirming with modification the judgment and order dated 27.03.2002 with passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Agartala, West Tripura in G.R. Case No. 877 of 1999 has been challenged in this revision petition. 2. Heard Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Public Prosecutor incharge of the case. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, may be stated as follows: On 02.12.1999 at about 5.15 p.m. at Amtali Bazar in front of a Saloon on Agartala Bishalgarh Road while Mr. Jiban Chakraborty was crossing the road, he was dashed by a Commander Jeep bearing registration No. TR-01 3514, driven by the accused/revision-Petitioner, Mr. Chakraborty sustained injuries and he was taken to hospital for treatment, wherein he succumbed to his injuries. An FIR was lodged against the accused/revision-Petitioner for rash and negligent driving and for causing injuries to the deceased. Police registered a case and submitted charge-sheet against the accused/revision-Petitioner for the offence under Section 279/304(A) of IPC. 4. The substance of accusation was explained to the accused/revision-Petitioner to which the accused/revision Petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused/revision-Petitioner was examined under Section 313of Code of Criminal Procedure; he denied the allegations and declined to adduce evidence. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Agartala, West Tripura having heard both the sides and considering the materials on record found the accused/revision-Petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 304(A) and 279of IPC. Accordingly, the accused/revision-Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- (one hundred), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC. The accused/revision-Petitioner was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one and half months for the offence under Section 279 of IPC. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the accused/revision-Petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. The accused/revision-Petitioner was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one and half months for the offence under Section 279 of IPC. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the accused/revision-Petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. The learned Sessions Judge having heard both the sides upheld the conviction modifying the sentence of 6 (six) months rigorous imprisonment to a sentence of 3 (three) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 (twenty) days and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) days, in default of payment of fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) under Section 279 of IPC. 8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, the accused-Appellant/revision-Petitioner has come up with the present revision. 9. Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the revision-Petitioner submitted that both the Courts below committed illegality by convicting the revision-Petitioner without any legal evidence. Learned Counsel further submitted that there is not an iota of evidence on record to find that the revision-Petitioner was driving the concerned vehicle at the relevant time. In reply, learned Public Prosecution incharge of the case submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to find that the revision-Petitioner was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and that the learned Trial Judge as well as the learned Sessions Judge committed no illegality by holding the revision-Petitioner guilty by the impugned judgment and order. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned Counsel I find it proper to scrutinize the evidence on record. 10. P.W. 1 Shri Prabir Kumar Bhattacharjee stated that the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01 3541 came in excessive speed and dashed Shri Jiban Chakraborty (since deceased), as a result of which he sustained injuries and became senseless. He stated that he submitted a written complaint before the O.C., Amtali P.S. He exhibited the FIR as Ext. P-1. In his cross-examination he stated that he did not see the incident himself. 11. P.W. 2 Shri Kamal Choudhury stated that the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01 3541 coming in excessive speed dashed Jiban Chakraborty (since deceased) causing injuries to him and that he succumbed to his injuries aforesaid. P-1. In his cross-examination he stated that he did not see the incident himself. 11. P.W. 2 Shri Kamal Choudhury stated that the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01 3541 coming in excessive speed dashed Jiban Chakraborty (since deceased) causing injuries to him and that he succumbed to his injuries aforesaid. He did not state anything about the identity of the driver. 12. P.W. 3 Shri Nihar Ranjan Biswas also stated that Jiban Chakraborty (since deceased) sustained injuries as he was dashed by a vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01 3541. This witness was also silent about the identity of the driver. 13. Mr. Anatan Roy deposing as P.W. 4 stated that the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01 3541 was driven in excessive speed and that the said vehicle had dashed Jiban Chakraborty (since deceased). He clearly stated that accused Krishna Ghosh was the driver of the offending vehicle on the relevant date and time. He identified the accused Krishna Ghosh in the Court also. In his cross-examination he stated that he was an employee of a medicine shop and the occurrence took place at a distance of about 10 to 15 ft. from his medicine shop. He further stated that he knew the accused/revision-Petitioner since earlier and that the accused/revision-Petitioner used to drive the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01 3541. This witness denied the suggestion put on behalf of the defence that accused/revision-Petitioner Krishna Ghosh was not the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time. He also denied the suggestion that he had given false evidence. There is nothing to show that this witness had any enmity or reason to speak against the accused/revision Petitioner. This witness was duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence but nothing could be elicited to render his evidence disbelievable. 14. P.W. 5 Ramprakash Show, P.W. 6 Biswanath Sarkar, P.W. 7 Ashis Debnath and P.W. 8 Rakhhari Chakraborty did not state anything about the identity of the driver. 15. P.W. 9 Ratan Miah who was the owner of the concerned vehicle stated that his vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01 3541 caused the accident and that accused/revision-Petitioner was driving his vehicle at the time of accident. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that he did not see with his own eyes that Krishna was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. He also admitted that his vehicle was also driver by others. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that he did not see with his own eyes that Krishna was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. He also admitted that his vehicle was also driver by others. He denied the suggestion that his vehicle was not driven by the accused/revision-Petitioner at the relevant time. The statement of this witness that he did not see accused Krishna driving his vehicle by his own eyes does not indicate that he had no knowledge as to who had driven the vehicle at the relevant time. He being the owner of the concerned vehicle was the most reliable person to state as to who was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. There is nothing on record to show that he had any interest to falsely implicate the accused/revision-Petitioner in this case. In view of the above, his specific statement that the accused was driving the vehicle at the relevant time appears to be reliable. Further he also corroborated the evidence of P.W. 4. A close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 will lead to believe without any reasonable doubt that accused/revision-Petitioner was the driver of the concerned vehicle at the relevant time. 16. In view of the above substantive evidence I am of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Judge as well as the learned Sessions Judge committed no illegality in appreciating the evidence on record and hereby holding that the accused/revision-Petitioner was guilty of driving the vehicle in the alleged way. 17. In the facts and circumstances stated above, I find no merit in this revision to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly, this revision stands dismissed. Return the Lower Court Records. Petition dismissed