C.R. Sarma, J.;- Heard Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State, Tripura, 2. By this application, the petitioner, who is a convict in GR Case No. 1067/1996, has challenged the judgment and order, dated 31.07.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in CriminalAppealNo.52(3)/2001. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, as re­vealed during the trial, may be stated as follows:- On 25.12.1996, at about 9.30AM., Sri Bidhan Hrishi Das, aged about 9 years (here­inafter called as deceased), while returning home on his foot, was knocked down by a Truck, bearing registration No.TRL-2186 near the approach of a bridge flanking Ramthakur School. The said incident is al­leged to have been place due to rash and neg­ligent driving on the part of the driver, namely, Sri Chitta Sarkar (hereinafter the appellant). The injured was taken to the hospital and he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. 4. Immediately, after the incident, on the basis of an FIR lodged by Sri Prantosh Hrishi Das, Officer-in-Charge, East Agartala Police Station Police registered as East Agartala PS Case No.210/1996 under Section 279/33S/ 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC). 5. During the course of investigation, po­lice prepared Inquest Report, forwarded the dead body for Post-mortem Report and ex­amined the witnesses connected with the case. The offending vehicle was sent to the Motor Vehicle Inspector for its examination. At the close of the investigation, Police, after obtain­ing Autopsy Report, submitted charge sheet, against the petitioner and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of this offence under Section 279 and 304(A). 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecu­tion examined as many as 16 witnesses. At the close of the prosecution witnesses, the accused person was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations, brought against him and declined to adduce defence evidence. 7. Having heard the learned counsel, ap­pearing for both the parties and considering the evidence, the learned trial Judge, by the judgment and order dated 23.08.2011 con­victed the petitioner under Sections 279 and 3 04(A) IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 7. Having heard the learned counsel, ap­pearing for both the parties and considering the evidence, the learned trial Judge, by the judgment and order dated 23.08.2011 con­victed the petitioner under Sections 279 and 3 04(A) IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default suffer S.I for l(one) month for his conviction under Section 2791.P.C and fur­ther sentenced him to suffer S.I for 6(six) months S .1 for his conviction under Section 304 (A) of IPC. 8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, dated 23.08.2011, the appellant pre­ferred an appeal being Criminai Appeal No.52(3)/2001, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment and order, dated 31.07.2003 aforesaid, while dismissing the appeal upheld the conviction and sentence recorded by learned Magistrate, First Class. 9. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order, the convicted person, as petitioner, has come up with this revision, on the ground that the Court below committed error by record­ing the conviction and sentence without suffi­cient evidence on record. 10. Mr. P K Biswas, learned counsel, ap­pearing for the appellant, taking this Court through the evidence on record, has submit­ted that there is no substantive evidence to show that the appellant was driving the ve­hicle in rash and negligent manner at the rel­evant time and as such, the learned Court below committed error by recording the con­viction and sentence, as indicated above. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that, in view of the fact that the occurrence took place on 25,12.1996, the petitioner has been suffering both mentally and financially during the last 15 years. Therefore, it is submitted that a lenient view may be taken by this Court and the petitioner may be al­lowed to pay the fine instead of undergoing imprisonment, that too only for 6(six) months at this stage. 11. Mr. R C Debnath, learned Special Prosecutor, supporting the impugned judg­ment and order, has submitted that there is sufficient evidence, on record, to show that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the peti­tioner. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the materials on record, I find that there is no dispute that de­ceased died due to the vehicular accident in­volving the offending vehicle, driven by the present petitioner. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the materials on record, I find that there is no dispute that de­ceased died due to the vehicular accident in­volving the offending vehicle, driven by the present petitioner. The P W11, who is the only eye witness in this case clearly stated that the deceased and another boy were on the road and that the concerned vehicle, i.e. the truck, bearing registration No.TRL-2186, was in speed. He further stated that the deceased was run over by the killer truck. From the evidence of P W-11, it appears that the acci­dent took place when the driver of the ve­hicle tried to cross the bridge. According to the PW. 11, the driver of the vehicle had made an attempt to cross the bridge in a negligent manner by driving the vehicle in speed. This witness was dully cross-examined on behalf of the defense. No material contradiction could be elicited to demolish his evidence re­garding his negligent driving on the part of the driver. 13. In view of the above, considering en­tire aspect of the matter, I find that the Court below committed no error by recording the conviction under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC. The petitioner has been sentenced to suffer SI for six months for his conviction un­der Section 304(A). He has also been sen­tenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default, suffer SI for 1 (one) month for his conviction under Section 279 IPC. 14. Facts remains that the occurrence took place, on 25.12.1996 and since then the pe­titioner has been facing legal proceeding. Undoubtedly, the petitioner, who is a driver by profession, suffered much, both mentally and economically. 15. Considering the facts and circum­stances of this case and in view of the nature of offences, committed by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitionertojail to suffer imprisonment only for six months, at this belated stage. Therefore, I am of the con­sidered opinion that for ends of justice, le­nient view should be taken in respect of the sentence. 16. Accordingly, while upholding the con­viction aforesaid, the sentence recorded under Section 304(A), is modified, requir­ing the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) instead of suf­fering SI for 6(six) month. The sentence recorded under Section 279 of IPC is not interfered. 16. Accordingly, while upholding the con­viction aforesaid, the sentence recorded under Section 304(A), is modified, requir­ing the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) instead of suf­fering SI for 6(six) month. The sentence recorded under Section 279 of IPC is not interfered. It is made clear that in default of the fine for the conviction under section 304(A) IPC the petitioner shall suffer S.I for 3 (three) months. 17. With the above modification, this re­vision petition is partly allowed. Return the LCRs.