JUDGMENT : This is a criminal revision petition, filed under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.PC, challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order, dated 22.10.2009, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 06(2)/2009, by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, upholding the Judgment and order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jonai, convicting and sentencing the accused-revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year for offence under Section 304(A) IPC and simple imprisonment for 3 months for offence under Section 279 IPC. 2. Heard Mr. I.A. Hazarika, learned counsel for the accused-revision petitioner. I have also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state respondent. 3. The fact of the case is that, on 12.3.2007, at about 11:30 am, Smti. Ruslin Doley was proceeding towards her college in her bicycle, on NH-52. While she was proceeding, a truck bearing Registration No. NL-05/8543, coming from behind being driven in excessive speed in rash and negligent manner, knocked her down, causing her instant death due to the head injuries she sustained. The FIR was lodged by Sri Sunil Doley, brother of the deceased. 4. On receipt of the FIR, Jonai Police Station registered a case, being Jonai PS Case No. 24/2007, under Sections 279/304(A) IPC, investigated into it, collected evidence, and finally, submitted charge-sheet under the aforesaid provisions of law against the accused-revision petitioner. 5. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 6 (six) witnesses including the investigating officer. 6. There is no dispute at the bar that there took place an accident resulting in the death of the deceased, Ruslin Doley. There is also no dispute at the bar that the death of the deceased was due to hitting her from behind by the truck driven by the accused-revision petitioner. 7. Now, the question left to be decided is whether there is rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused-revision petitioner resulting in the death of the deceased, Ruslin Doley. 8. On perusal of the evidence of all the 6 (six) witnesses, it is found that the judgment of the learned trial court as well as that of the learned appellate court are based basically on the evidence of PW4, Gajen Hazarika. 9. 8. On perusal of the evidence of all the 6 (six) witnesses, it is found that the judgment of the learned trial court as well as that of the learned appellate court are based basically on the evidence of PW4, Gajen Hazarika. 9. The evidence of PW4 makes it clearly appear that the accused-revision petitioner had driven the truck with one hand and was holding a mobile phone with his other hand, meaning thereby, that he was negligent in driving the truck otherwise he would not have used one hand for operating the mobile phone at his hand. This evidence is enough to show that there was negligence on the part of the accused-revision petitioner in driving the vehicle. He had driven the vehicle with one hand in the steering is against any provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. Such being the evidence coming out from the mouth of the PW4, this court is of the view that the evidence of the other witnesses is not of much relevance as they were not eyewitnesses to the occurrence. 10. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the accused-revision petitioner has submitted that the fact that the accused-revision petitioner was holding the steering with one hand and the mobile with the other is based on the evidence of the solitary witness and there is no corroboration on this aspect. But, this court is of the view that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity which should be weighed while appreciating the evidence of facts. There is no instance in the record to show, even remotely, that for any reason, this witness is not reliable, rather the consistent evidence of PW4, even in his cross-examination, makes him reliable and inspiring confidence of this court. Therefore, holding the accused-revision petitioner guilty for offence under Sections 304(A)/279 IPC, is based on evidence on record, requiring no interference. 11. So far the punishment of the accused-revision petitioner is concerned, the punishment for simple imprisonment for 1 year for commission of an offence under Section 304(A) IPC and simple imprisonment for 3 months for an offence under Section 279 IPC imposed by the learned courts below, appears to be in the higher side. Therefore, in the considered view of this court, interference in respect of the sentence is necessary. 12. Therefore, in the considered view of this court, interference in respect of the sentence is necessary. 12. Accordingly, the accused-revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, another 15 days simple imprisonment for an offence under Section 304(A) IPC, and further sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for another 15 days for an offence under Section 279 IPC. 13. The sentence imposed by the learned trial court as well as by the learned appellate court, is modified accordingly. 14. The accused-revision petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial court within 1 (one) month from the date of this judgment to serve out the sentence. 15. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.