JUDGMENT : Heard M/s. Rupali Dungdung, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned A.P.P. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 24.03.2000 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sadar at Chaibasa on 28.06.1996 in connection with Jagannathpur P.S. Case No. 23 of 1993 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively has been dismissed. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been a delay in institution of the First Information Report. It has been stated that the informant is not an eye-witness and the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. - 3 cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel further submits that P.W.- 4 is the brother of the deceased and being an interested witness his evidence also has to be discarded. Learned counsel further submits that the independent witnesses P.W. - 2 and P.W. - 3 have never stated about the rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner. It has also been stated that these witnesses have also not said anything about seeing the petitioner boarding on the roof top of the bus. Learned counsel has put forwarded an alternative argument to the effect that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner be modified. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 5. It appears that a First Information Report was instituted on the allegation that the son of the informant was coming from Hatgamaria on Prakash Bus to Jagannathpur and since the bus was overcrowded the petitioner had boarded the bus on the roof and when the bus had reached near Kolaiasai he fell down from the roof due to which he got head injuries and he ultimately succumbed to his injuries. 6. 6. Based on the aforesaid allegation Jagannathpur P.S. Case No. 23 of 1993 was instituted in which after investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code in which the cognizance was taken by the learned court below and the trial proceeded. 7. In course of trial five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. -1, Manaram Sinku, is the father of the deceased and the informant of the case. P.W. - 2, Lakshman Sinku, P.W. - 3, Bir Singh Sinku, were co-passengers who were traveling on the said bus at the time of the accident. P.W. 4, Sunil Kishore Sinku, is the brother of the deceased and P.W. - 5, Dr. B. Dayal, is the doctor who had performed the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased. 8. Admittedly P.W. - 1 is not eye-witness to the occurrence. The entire conviction is based on the evidence of P.W. 2, 3 and 4 who were said to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. -2 and 3 have stated about the bus being overcrowded and when the bus had arrived at Kolaisai the deceased had fell down from the roof of the bus and when the passengers sitting on the roof had raised cry of alarm the bus had stopped and thereafter it was found that the deceased Kamal Kishore Sinku was severely injured. 9. P.W. - 3, Bir Singh Sinku, has also stated on similar terms to that of P.W. -2. P.W. -4, Sunil Kishore Sinku, is the brother of the deceased who had stated that he had seen the driver and had claimed to identify the petitioner. This witness has claimed to have seen his brother falling from the bus. P.W. - 1, Manaram Sinku, is the informant and the father of the deceased who on being informed by the villagers had visited Noamundi Hospital and had also put his signature on his fardbeyan. 10. Admittedly P.W. - 1 is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W. - 5 is the doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination and had found several antemortem injuries on the person of the deceased. The evidence of P.W. - 2 and P.W. - 3 are consistent to the point of the deceased falling down from the roof of the vehicle and getting himself injured and which ultimately resulted in his death. The evidence of P.W. - 2 and P.W. - 3 are consistent to the point of the deceased falling down from the roof of the vehicle and getting himself injured and which ultimately resulted in his death. Though the evidence of P.W. - 4 who happens to be the brother of the deceased seems to be fraught with interest but the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are completely in unison with each other and their evidence thus can be relied upon with respect to the deceased falling down from the roof of the vehicle and getting himself injured. The learned trial court on consideration of the evidence of P.W. - 2, P.W. - 3 and P.W. - 4 had convicted the petitioner which has been affirmed by the learned appellate court. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise the order of conviction of the petitioner is, hereby, sustained. 11. However, as regards the sentence which has been awarded to the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the petitioner has remained in custody for sometime and the prosecution case was instituted in the year 1993. Such circumstance, therefore, entitles the petitioner to a reduction in the period of sentence awarded to him. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is, hereby, reduced to the period already undergone. 12. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.