ORDER : The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 08.07.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Palamau at Dhanbad whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.04.2009, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 279 and 304 (A) IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months under Section 279 IPC and R.I for 1 year under Section 304 (A) IPC, has been affirmed. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 07.05.2005 at about 6.00 A.M. in the morning, the deceased, Neha Kumari was washing her face beside a ‘Nad’ in front of her house and in the meantime, a commander jeep bearing registration no. M.P. 27B-0371, driven by the owner of the jeep Umesh Pandey came from the North direction and dashed the deceased-Neha Kumari. As a result of the accident, she received multiple grievous injury and was rushed to Hospital at Garhwa but on the way she succumbed to injury. It has further been alleged that after the occurrence, the driver left his vehicle and fled away from the place of occurrence. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant-Dilip Thakur, the FIR was registered as Rehla P.S. Case No. 32/2005 on 07.05.2005 under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC. After completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet and thereafter, charges were framed and the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. On the basis of materials brought on record, the learned trial court hold the petitioners guilty for the offence under Section 279 and 304 A IPC and accordingly, convicted him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 279 IPC and R.I for one year under Section 304 A IPC. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge-V, Palamau at Daltonganj and the learned appellate court after discussing all the materials placed before him, came to the conclusion that the eye witness of the accident appears credible and wholly reliable and there is sufficient evidence to establish the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC against the accused and finally affirmed the judgment without interfering with the sentence also. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as per the M.V.I. report, which is exhibit-5, clearly transpires that there was break fail of the vehicle, as such, it cannot be said that there was any rash and negligent driving. He further submits that there is no other evidence of the prosecution, which can show that there was rash and negligent driving. In this view of the matter, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts and this is a fit case where the petitioner should be acquitted from the charges leveled against him. The alternative argument of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and this accident has been committed by him because there was a sudden break fail of the vehicle and as such he should be given benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. 7. Per contra, the learned APP submits that there is no error in the impugned order and the petitioner has been rightly convicted in this case. 8. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the impugned orders and lower court records and keeping in mind the limited scope of the revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, confirmed. 9. Now coming to the alternative argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act may be granted to the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and there is no criminal antecedent, what so ever, except the present one. M.V.I. report clearly transpires that there was a break fail of the vehicle. Having regard to the circumstances of this case and the character of the offender and the nature of offence which does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any mental depravity, I am of the considered opinion that sending the petitioner back to prison will not serve any fruitful purpose and it is expedient to release him on probation. 10. As a result, the petitioner is directed to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 10. As a result, the petitioner is directed to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner shall file two sureties to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-coupled with personal bond to the effect that he shall not commit any offence and shall be of good behavior and shall maintain peace during the period of two years. If there is breach of any conditions, he will subject himself to undergo sentence as directed by the learned trial court. The bond aforesaid be filed by the petitioner within three months from the date of this judgment. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions the instant revision application is disposed of. 12. The petitioner is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 13. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.