JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The accused/revisionist is alleged to commit offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. On conclusion of the trial to which he stood subjected to, the learned trial Court recorded findings of conviction upon the accused/convict for his committing offences under the afore referred penal provisions. The learned trial Court proceeded to hence sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC besides sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.3500/-, in default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo further imprisonment for two months. In so far as an offence constituted under Section 279, IPC qua commission whereof, the learned trial Court also recorded findings of conviction upon the accused, it proceeded to sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months besides sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo further imprisonment for one month. He was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500 for his committing an offence punishable under Section 337 of the IPC. In default of payment of fine amount, he was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused/convict preferred an appeal there from before the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. The Appellate Court rendered a judgment in affirmation to the verdict of conviction and consequent sentences as stood recorded against him by the learned trial Court. The accused/convict has been hence led to institute the instant revision petition therefrom before this Court seeking therein the setting aside of findings of convictions and consequent sentences concurrently imposed upon him by both the learned Courts below. 2. The accused/convict has been hence led to institute the instant revision petition therefrom before this Court seeking therein the setting aside of findings of convictions and consequent sentences concurrently imposed upon him by both the learned Courts below. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that reporter Sunil Kumar son of Dhani Ram on 27.07.2008 was walking on foot at Didwin Bazaar near Modern Eduction Academy, Didwin Tikkar when he had seen bus No. HP-72-0859 being driven at fast speed and at the curve overtook a truck coming upward of the road and in the meantime, a scooterist came driving scooter bearing No. HP-22A-1171 along with a pillion rider from Didwin Tikker bazaar on his side, but the driver of bus after overtaking the truck had hit the scooter by coming on wrong side of the road, i.e. right side and as a result, scooterist along with pillion rider fell on the road. The scooterist fell unconscious on the road, but the driver of the bus distrubed the original scene of the crime and took the bust at some distance ahead of the spot, parked it on left side of the road, then absconded from the spot. Injured persons were shifted to hospital. On the basis of aforesaid information, FIR was lodged against the accused in the police station concerned. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer concerned completed the codel formalities. 3. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed before the learned trial Court. 4. The accused was charged by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/convict under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the learned trial Court in which the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication in the case. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against the accused/convict. In an appeal preferred therefrom by the accused/revisionist before the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, the latter affirmed the judgment of the learned trial Court. 6. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against the accused/convict. In an appeal preferred therefrom by the accused/revisionist before the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, the latter affirmed the judgment of the learned trial Court. 6. The accused/convict stands aggrieved by the judgments of conviction recorded by both the learned courts below. The learned counsel for the accused/convict has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction recorded against him by both the learned Courts below standing not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material on record. Hence, he contends that the findings of conviction being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation by them of the evidence on record and theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. In a collision which occurred inter se the offending bus driven at the relevant time by the accused vis-a-vis scooter bearing No. HP-22A-1171 whereon one Sunil Kumar was atop, the latter as pronounced in postmortem report embodied in Ex.PW3/A, suffered his demise. PW-3, who proved postmortem report embodied in Ex.PW3/A, has in his examination-in-chief made vivid articulations therein qua the injuries noticed by him to occur on the body of the deceased while holding his body to autopsy standing sequelled by internal bleedings. The defence has not laid any efficacious challenge to the postmortem report embodied in Ex.PW3/A thereupon sanctity is imputable to the findings recorded therein. 10. Uncontrovertedly as reflected in site plan encapsulated in Ex.PW17/A, the offending bus at the relevant time stood driven by the accused on the inappropriate side of the road, whereas the scooter at the relevant time stood driven by its driver, deceased Sunil Kumar on the appropriate side of the road. 10. Uncontrovertedly as reflected in site plan encapsulated in Ex.PW17/A, the offending bus at the relevant time stood driven by the accused on the inappropriate side of the road, whereas the scooter at the relevant time stood driven by its driver, deceased Sunil Kumar on the appropriate side of the road. Also reflections occur in site plan borne of Ex.PW17/A qua the accused while driving the offending bus at the relevant time thereat his concerting to access the inappropriate side of the road, for fructifying his endeavour to overtake a truck. 11. The star prosecution witnesses, who stepped into the witness box to sustain the charge against the accused are PW-6 and PW-7. Both are eye witnesses to the occurrence. Their respective testifictions are unbereft of any stain of any intra se contradictions besides their respective testifications occurring in their respective examinations-in-chief are also unbereft of any taint of any inter se contradictions vis-à-vis their versions occurring in their respective cross-examinations, whereupon credence stood tenably imputed by the learned courts below to their respective versions qua the ill-fated occurrence. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/petitioner herein has with vigour contended qua with PW-6, who at the relevant time was occupying along with deceased Sunil Kumar the pillion of the scooter, making a communication in his examination-in-chief qua his not holding knowledge qua the name and identity of the accused would render a befitting conclusion from this Court qua the prosecution failing to prove the identity of the accused, especially when no test identification parade stood held by the prosecution. The aforesaid submission as stands addressed here before by the counsel for the petitioner visibly staggers, in the face of the evident factum pronounced in his examination-in-chief by PW-13, the owner of the offending bus qua bus bearing No. HP-72- 0859 standing at the relevant time driven by the accused/petitioner herein also his articulating therein qua at the relevant time qua occurrence of the mishap, it standing driven by accused Bachittar Singh. The aforesaid communications occurring in the examination-in-chief of PW-13 stood unconcerted to be repulsed of their efficacy by the learned defence counsel while holding him to cross-examination by his putting apposite suggestions to him for hence eliciting apposite answeres from him whereupon the effect of the relevant afore stated communication unfolded by PW-13 in his examination-in-chief would stand negated. The aforesaid communications occurring in the examination-in-chief of PW-13 stood unconcerted to be repulsed of their efficacy by the learned defence counsel while holding him to cross-examination by his putting apposite suggestions to him for hence eliciting apposite answeres from him whereupon the effect of the relevant afore stated communication unfolded by PW-13 in his examination-in-chief would stand negated. Consequently, the omission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused to hence negate the effect of the aforesaid communications occurring in the examination-in-chief of PW-13 does fillip an inference qua the defence acquiescing to the factum of the accused at the relevant time driving the offending bus also stirs an inference qua the defence acquiescing to the factum of the accused manning the steering wheel of the offending bus at the relevant time when a collision occurred inter se it and the scooter whereon the deceased was astride as its driver. Consequently, hence with the defence acquiescing to the identity of the accused/petitioner renders the address made here before by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner anvilled on a communication occurring in the examination-in-chief of PW-6 qua his not holding any knowledge qua the name and identity of the accused to hence constrain a conclusion qua the prosecution failing to firmly establish the identity of the accused, to hold no worth or vigour. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also contended qua with PW-6 in his cross-examination to which he stood subjected to by the learned APP concerned, on his standing declared hostile, denying the suggestion put thereat to him by the learned APP concerned qua the purported offending bus bearing No. HP-72-0859, hence empowering him to contend qua the prosecution also failing to establish the involvement of the aforesaid bus in the ill-fated mishap involving it and the scooter whereon the deceased was astride as its driver. The aforesaid submission also does not acquire any worth in the face of PW-7, the other ocular witness to the occurrence in his examination-in-chief revealing the registration number of the bus driven at the relevant time by the accused, reiteratedly when the relevant factum aforesaid as stand unfolded by PW7 in his examination-in-chief stood unconcerted to stand shred of its efficacy by the defence counsel while holding him to an exacting cross-examination. Also with this Court for reasons afore stated, on analyzing the testimony of PW-13, the registered owner of the bus, erecting an inference qua the defence acquiescing qua the accused at the relevant time driving the offending bus also its acquiescing to the factum of the offending bus suffering a collision with the scooter whereon the deceased was astride as its driver, does also render insignificant the factum of PW- 6 in his cross-examination denying besides negating the suggestion put to him by the learned APP qua the offending bus bearing registration No. HP-72-0859. 13. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that both the learned Courts below have appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by both the learned Courts below does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, rather they have aptly appreciated the material available on record. Consequently, the judgments of conviction recorded against the accused/petitioner by the learned Courts below are affirmed. 14. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant revision petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. The impugned judgments of conviction rendered by both the learned Courts below are affirmed and maintained. 15. However, given the accused suffering the agony of a protracted trial whereupon it is befitting to reduce the concurrently pronounced sentences imposed upon him by both the learned Courts below. Consequently, the convict/petitioner herein is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for his committing an offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for his committing an offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for his committing an offence punishable under Section 337 of the IPC. He is also directed to deposit a fine of Rs.25,000/- within two weeks from today before the learned trial Court, amount whereof shall be disbursed in favour of the legal heirs of deceased Sunil Kumar. In default of payment of fine amount, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine amount, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The period of detention, if any, undergone by the convict/petitioner herein during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the case and before the date of conviction, is ordered to be set off. The learned trial Court is directed to henceforth put into execution the sentences as imposed upon the accused by this Court. Records be sent back forthwith.