JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. By Judgment and order, dated 30.04.2002, passed, in GR Case NO. 434/2000, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, the accused-petitioner, Md. Ghulam Ali, stood convicted under Sections 279, 337 and 427 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo, for his conviction under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, on each count, and also to undergo, for his conviction under Section 427 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, with fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months, all the sentences having been directed to run consecutively. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences, passed against him, as indicated above, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal, which gave rise to Criminal Appeal NO. 19/2003. By judgment and order, dated 22.06.2004, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and the sentences passed against the accused-petitioner. Dissatisfied with his conviction and the sentences passed against him, the accused-petitioner is, now, before this Court challenging, with the help of this revision, the legality and validity of his conviction and the sentences passed against him. 2. I have heard Mr. Z. Alam, learn counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant, and Mr. K. Munir, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the opposite party. 3. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be set out as follows: On 26-06-2000, at about 1.30 am, accused Md. Golam Ali, while rashly driving truck, bearing registration No. AS-01/A-6509, dashed against the gate of the house of the informant (PW1) and the said truck, having so dashed against the gate, entered into the compound of the said house and, apart from damaging banana and coconut trees, hit two persons, namely, Maijuddin Ahmed (PW6) and Moksedul Hussain (PW7), causing injuries on their persons. On being informed about the occurrence, the Officer-in-Charge, Goalpara Police Station, made a General Diary Entry in this regard and sent the Investigating Officer (PW9) to the place of occurrence. On visiting the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer (PW9), having found the said two injured persons, sent them to the Civil Hospital, Goalpara, for their examinations and treatment. The Investigating Officer (PW9) seized, vide seizure list (Ext. On visiting the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer (PW9), having found the said two injured persons, sent them to the Civil Hospital, Goalpara, for their examinations and treatment. The Investigating Officer (PW9) seized, vide seizure list (Ext. 4), the said truck, which was lying at the place of occurrence itself, but could not apprehend the accused, who was driving the said truck, inasmuch as the accused had fled away from the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence. Thereafter, on being informed about the occurrence, PW1 came to his house, saw what had been done by rash driving of the said truck and lodged, on 26-06-2000, a written Ejahar. Treating the said Ejahar as the First Information Report and, based on the same, a case was registered, against the accused-petitioner, under Sections 279/338/427 IPC and, on completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid, against the accused-petitioner, under Sections 279/338/427 IPC. 4. At the trial, when the particulars of offences, under Sections 279, 337 and 427 IPC, were explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty thereto. 5. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses. The accused-petitioner was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused-petitioner denied that he had driven the said truck, at the relevant point of time, his defence being that of complete denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 6. While considering the present revision, it needs to be noted, at the very outset, that on the basis of an information received at Goalpara Police Station, the Officer-in-Charge, as already mentioned above, made an entry, in the General Diary, with regard to the occurrence and deputed PW9 to do the needful and, accordingly, as the evidence of PW9 reveals, he (PW9) visited the place of occurrence, sent the injured to the hospital, seized the vehicle and examined the witnesses and 3/4 days thereafter, PW1 lodged a written Ejahar (Ext. 1), which was treated as the First Information Report. 7. 1), which was treated as the First Information Report. 7. Considering the fact that the investigation of the case had already started and had made great headway on the basis of the massage received at Goalpara Police Station on the day of the occurrence, i.e., on 26-06-2000 itself, the information, with regard to the occurrence, which had been received by the police, at the said police station, and with regard to which the relevant entry had been made in the General Diary, ought to have been treated as the First Information Report and the subsequent written Ejahar, which PW1 lodged, as regards the occurrence, was nothing, but his (PW1's) statement, in writing, made during the course of investigation and could not have been treated, in law, as the First Information Report of the case. 8. Bearing in mind what is indicated above, let me, now, turn to the evidence of PW1 at whose house, the occurrence had, admittedly, taken place. According to the evidence of this witness, on 26-06-2000, at about 1.30 pm, he was at E & D office and, on being informed, over telephone, by police about the occurrence, he came to his house and found that the gate, at his house, which was made of CI Sheets, was lying broken and his younger brother, Maizuddin (PW6), was lying, in the compound, with injuries on his person and his tenant's son, Mousedul Hussain (PW7) too, had also sustained injuries on his person. 9. Though PW1 had not witnessed how the occurrence had taken place, his evidence, that the gate of his house stood broken and two persons aforementioned were found injured, remained unshaken in his cross-examination. 10. Close on the heels of the evidence of PW1, PW2, a neighbour of PW1, has deposed that on 26-06-2000, at about 1.00 pm, while he was taking his lunch at his house, he heard some sound, he came out of his house and saw that CI Sheet gate of PW1 was lying broken and his tenant's son was lying injured. Though PW2 has deposed that he knows the accused-person, he (PW2) had not seen the accused-petitioner driving the vehicle. Though PW2 has deposed that he knows the accused-person, he (PW2) had not seen the accused-petitioner driving the vehicle. The evidence of PW2, thus, proves that the gate of the house of PW1 stood broken and the son of the tenant of PW1 was seen injured, though PW1 had not seen how the gate had come to be broken or how the son of the tenant of PW1 had got injured. Even his evidence remained intact in his cross-examination. 11. Broadly in tune with the evidence of PW1 and PW2, PW3 has deposed that though he did not see the occurrence, he returned to his rented house at 3.30 pm, on the day of the occurrence, and came to learn about the occurrence and saw the CI Sheet gate of PW1 lying broken by a vehicle and his son (PW7) and his landlord's younger brother (PW6) had sustained injuries and that he also found the vehicle at the place of occurrence. In his cross-examination, PW3 has clarified that he saw the vehicle inside the boundary of his landlord. Though cross-examined, nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of PW3 to show that his evidence is unacceptable or unbelievable. 12. So far as PW4 (doctor) is concerned, he, admittedly, examined, at Civil Hospital, Goalpara, PW6 and PW7 and found that PW6 had pain in lower lumber and abrasions over right knee 1 x 1 cm reddish blue colour and examination of PW7, according to PW4 (doctor), revealed that PW7 had been suffering from pain at the right occipital region and also on the right hip with reddish blue colour. 13. The opinion of the doctor is that the injuries, which the said two injured had suffered, were simple in nature and caused by blunt object. The findings of the doctor (PW4) and his opinion remained unchallenged by the defence. 14. When I turn to the evidence of PW5, who is claimed to be the witness of the occurrence, I notice that according to her, she, on 26-06-2000, at about 1.00 pm, saw one truck entering into their compound by breaking the gate and knocked down PW6 and PW7 and that the truck also caused damage to the coconut and mango trees in their compound and the driver of the truck fled away by leaving the truck. Nothing could be elicited from her cross-examination of PW5 to show that what she had deposed was untrue or false. 15. So far as PW6, who is, admittedly, one of the injured, is concerned, his evidence is that on the day of the occurrence, when he, along with PW7, was inside the boundary of his house, the truck, bearing registration No. AS-01A/6509, knocked the gate, broke the same, caused damage to coconut and banana trees and, then, knocked him (PW6) and PW7 down and that he (PW6) sustained injuries. It is in the evidence of PW6 that the vehicle was being driven, at the relevant point of time, by the present accused-petitioner and that at the time of occurrence, the vehicle was at very high speed and it was due to the driver's negligent driving that the occurrence had taken place. 16. Though PW6 was put to cross-examination, nothing significant could be elicited from his cross-examination by the defence and except putting some suggestions, which PW6 denied, there was virtually no effective cross-examination. 17. The evidence of PW6, thus, remained unshaken and intact and his evidence clearly proves that it was the accused-petitioner, who had driven the vehicle at very high speed, knocked down the said gate, caused damage to some trees and, then, knocked down and injured PW6 and PW7. Consistent with the evidence of PW6 is the evidence of PW7, who, though could not name the accused, did describe the occurrence. 18. As far as PW8 is concerned, he is a Foreman of the Assam State Transport Corporation, he had, admittedly, examined the vehicle and found that the vehicle had no mechanical defect. 19. From the evidence, as depicted above, it clearly emerges that the accused rashly drove the vehicle, in question, damaged the gate of PW1's house, caused damaged to some trees there, knocked down PW6 and PW7 and injured them. 20. In the face of the evidence as discussed above, there could have been no escape from the conclusion, and it has been rightly held by the learned trial Court, that notwithstanding his denial that he was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time, the accused-petitioner had been proved, beyond reasonable doubt, to have driven the vehicle in the manner as indicated above and caused thereby damage to the properties of PW1 and injured PW6 and PW7. 21. 21. Situated thus, this Court does not find that the conviction of the accused-petitioner, under Sections 279, 337 and 427, suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual. The learned appellate Court, therefore, committed no error of fact or law in upholding the conviction of the accused-petitioner. 22. Coming to the sentence, which has been passed against the accused-petitioners, it may be noted that though the vehicle, in question, was proved to have been driven by the accused-petitioner rashly, on the public way, in a manner, which endangered human life and also caused hurt to PW6 and PW7, the accused-petitioner ought not to have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of three months on each count and that sentence of imprisonment of one month on each count, i.e., for the offence committed under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, would have served the ends of justice. Similarly, the sentence of imprisonment of one year, passed against the accused-petitioner, for the offence committed by him under Section 427 IPC, was, in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, was harsh and excessive inasmuch as he had merely broken the gate and damaged some trees. In such circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment of three months for his conviction, under Section 427 IPC, with fine of Rs.500/- and, in default thereof, a sentence to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks, would have met the ends of justice. 23. While, therefore, the convictions of the accused-petitioner under Sections 279, 337 and 427 IPC are not interfered with, his sentence of imprisonment is hereby modified by sentencing him to suffer, for his conviction under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month on each count and also to suffer, for his conviction under Section 427 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months with fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently and not consecutively. 24. With the above modifications in the sentence passed against the accused-petitioner, this revision stands disposed of. 25. Send back the LCR. The accused-petitioner is hereby directed to surrender, forthwith, in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, so as to serve out the sentences of imprisonment passed against him.