S.C. Das, J.;- This criminal revision petition, under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, is directed against the judgment & order, dated 10.06.2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Appeal No. 1(1)72003. By that impugned judgment learned Sessions Judge upheld the judgment & order of conviction and sentence, dated 5.12.2002, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.GR.330/2000, whereby and whereunder learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of committing of­fence, punishable under Sections 279 & 338 of I.P.C and sentenced him to suffer RI for 3(three) months under Section 279 of I.P.C and again R.I for 6(six) months under Sec­tion 338 of I.P.C. 2. Heard learned Counsel, Mrs. N Guha for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. R C Debnath for the State-respondent. 3. I have meticulously gone through the impugned judgments, passed by the Courts below and also the evidence and materials on record. 4. In a revisional application this Court is to see the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned judgment & order, passed by the Court below and the regularity of the proceeding before such inferior Court. Ordi­narily, in a revisional application this Court is not required to reassess the evidence on record, unless it is apparently shown that the finding of the Court below is perverse or based on no evidence. 5. The prosecution case is that Mahadev Bhattacharjee, Satish Ch. Ghosh and Sajal Chakraborty were on a morning walk, on 29.04.2000 at about 6.00 AM through Ramnagar road No.4 towards Gangail road extension and at that time a Maruti Van vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01 -A-1965 coming from northern direction with high speed knocked down Satish Ch. Ghosh and Mahadev Bhattacharjee and, as a result, both of them sustained serious injuries and Sajal Chakraborty some how escaped from injury as he jumped away in the roadside. The in­jured Mahadev Bhattacharjee and Satish Ch. Ghosh was taken to G.B hospital with the offending vehicle and they were treated in the hospital. The accused petitioner, Amal Das was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident and the accident occurred for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. 6. Learned counsel, Mrs. The in­jured Mahadev Bhattacharjee and Satish Ch. Ghosh was taken to G.B hospital with the offending vehicle and they were treated in the hospital. The accused petitioner, Amal Das was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident and the accident occurred for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. 6. Learned counsel, Mrs. Guha, assailed the judgment & order of conviction and sen­tence only on the ground that the identifica­tion of the accused petitioner, as the driver of the vehicle, at the time of alleged accident has not been proved with legal evidence and hence the judgment & order of conviction and sen­tence, passed by the Court below, should be interfered and is liable to be set aside. No other point raised at the time of argument. Learned Spl.P.R, Mr. Debnath, on the other hand, has submitted that the identity of the accused was established in the evidence of PW. 1 and that was corroborated by PW.2. The accused surrendered before the Police and was arrested and his driving license was seized by I.O. Under such circumstances, the argument that the identity of the accused is not established is an unfounded argument and should not be entertained. 7. I have considered the submission of learned counsels of both sides. P W. 1 categorically stated in his statement that the accused-petitioner, Amal Das, was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and the witnesses identified him in the dock. Learned counsel, Mrs. Guha, argued that the witness, for the first time, before the Court named the accused and identified him. In his previous statement before I.O., recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, no such state­ment was made by the witness. She has, how­ever, submitted that at the time of cross-ex­amination the witness was not contradicted with his previous statement but for fair ends of justice this Court may consider the evidence after going through the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The submission of learned counsel, Mrs. Guha, is contrary to the procedure established by law. A statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C is not an evidence recorded during trial. It is a statement recorded during investigation by police and is to be used for corroboration and/or contradiction at the time of examination of the witness in the witness box. Guha, is contrary to the procedure established by law. A statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C is not an evidence recorded during trial. It is a statement recorded during investigation by police and is to be used for corroboration and/or contradiction at the time of examination of the witness in the witness box. Such statement, recorded under Sec­tion 161 or 164 of Cr.P.C, has got no evi­dentiary value and in no way be treated as a part of evidence recorded during trial. The Court cannot look into and consider any such statement unless it is proved in course of trial after drawing attention of the witness to such statement, while the witness was in the wit­ness box. The witness makes specific state­ment that the accident occurred due to negli­gent driving of the driver and at the time of accident the accused, Amal Das, was the driver of the vehicle and this statement has remained unrebutted. Further, on perusal of the deposition of PW.2, I find that the witness has corrobo­rated the statement of PW. 1. PW.2 was de­clared hostile by the prosecution and he was cross-examined by the Assistant Public Pros­ecutor as well as by the defence counsel. The evidence of a hostile witness cannot be treated as effaced from the record. The Court should be slow to rely on the evidence of a hostile witness, as the witness made different state­ment at different stage and the party who brought the witness has no faith on him. It is settled law that the evidence of a hostile wit­ness may be considered with that of other evi­dence on record and that part of the state­ment consistent with other evidence on record whether in favour or against the prosecution or the defence may be taken into considera­tion. In this case, PW.2, though was declared hostile by the prosecution, in cross examina­tion by the learned Addl. P.P, has stated that the accused, Amal Das, was driver of the vehicle No.TR-01-A-1965 and he was ar­rested by the police in connection with the case and he got him (accused) released on bail from the police station. PW.2 was the surety of the accused person and the accused person was his neighbor. The accused was known to him since long. He denied the sug­gestion that to save the accused he sup­pressed the truth. There is nothing material in the cross-examination of PW.2. PW.2 was the surety of the accused person and the accused person was his neighbor. The accused was known to him since long. He denied the sug­gestion that to save the accused he sup­pressed the truth. There is nothing material in the cross-examination of PW.2. Further, in the evidence of PW.6,1 find that the accused surrendered before the police Station and I.O arrested him, on 04.05.2000 and subse­quently he was released on bail. His driving license alongwith document of the vehicle was seized by I.O. This is in support of the pros­ecution case that the accused was the driver of the vehicle. Furthermore, I find, in the examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the incriminating evidence of PW.I regarding identity of the accused was put to him to which the accused admitted that he was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident and that there was no fault on his part in the accident. After such admission by the accused, in his cross-examination, under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, such an argument advanced by learned counsel, Mrs. Guha, has no merit at all and deserves no consideration. 8. On perusal of the evidence of Motor Vehicle Inspector (P W.4), I find that the ve­hicle had no mechanical disorder and there is no defence plea that the accident occurred for any other reason except a formal denial of rash and negligent driving. The evidence of PWs. 1 to 6, as eye-witness of the accident makes it clear that the accident occurred for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and, as a result, Satish Ch. Ghosh, father of the in­formant and Madhav Bhattacharjee were in­jured. I, therefore, find no reason at all to in­terfere with the judgment & order of convic­tion and sentence, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. 9. The accident occurred on 29.04.2000. In the meantime, the accused, with an order of conviction and sentence of imprisonment on his head has already passed 12 years. So, I think, the period of sentence may be mini­mized taking into consideration that there is noting that the accused previously also was convicted for such rash and negligent driving. 9. The accident occurred on 29.04.2000. In the meantime, the accused, with an order of conviction and sentence of imprisonment on his head has already passed 12 years. So, I think, the period of sentence may be mini­mized taking into consideration that there is noting that the accused previously also was convicted for such rash and negligent driving. In consideration of the above, the convict petitioner, Amal Das, is sentenced u/s 279 of I.P.C to suffer RI for 15 (fifteen) days and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thou­sand), in default of payment, suffer SI for 15(fifteen) days. He is also sentenced u/s 338 of I.P.C to suffer R.I for 1 (one) month and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thou­sand), in default of payment of fine to suffer SI for 45 (forty five) days. The sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 10. The revision petition accordingly, stands disposed of with the modification of sentence, as aforesaid.