ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Upadhyay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State. 3. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision against the Judgment dated 23.07.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.49/2014 whereby and whereunder the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court was confirmed. 4. The criminal appeal was preferred against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 28.04.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chaibasa in G.R. Case No. 83 of 2010 / T.R. No.63/2014 [arising out of Manjhari (Tantnagar O.P.) P.S. Case No.06/2010] whereby and whereunder the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code, Rigorous Imprisonment for three months under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code, Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the learned courts below have failed to consider that although P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, in their examination-in-chief, have stated that the petitioner was driving the vehicle with which the accident had taken place and immediately after the accident, they became unconscious, but subsequently, they have stated that they came to know in the hospital that the petitioner was driving the vehicle. He submits that the aforesaid is material contradiction and inconsistency in their evidence. He further submits that P.W.- 3, 4, 5 and 6 are hearsay witnesses. The learned counsel submitted that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the petitioner was driving the vehicle and accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is fit to be set aside. 6. He submits that the aforesaid is material contradiction and inconsistency in their evidence. He further submits that P.W.- 3, 4, 5 and 6 are hearsay witnesses. The learned counsel submitted that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the petitioner was driving the vehicle and accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is fit to be set aside. 6. On the point of sentence, he further submitted that the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of nearly three months from 25.08.2014 to 20.11.2014 and the present offence is his first offence and as such, if this Court is not inclined to set aside the conviction of the petitioner, a sympathetic view may be taken and the period of sentence of the petitioner may be modified. He submitted that the argument on the point of sentence is without prejudice to the aforesaid arguments on behalf of the petitioner on the merit of the case. Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State 7. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer and submitted that P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are the injured eye witnesses of the occurrence and they have fully supported the prosecution case that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of the accident and P.W.-8 has established the identity of the vehicle and the driver. He submitted that there are concurrent findings of both the learned courts below and there is limited scope under revisional jurisdiction and as such, there is no perversity in the impugned judgments. He further submitted that the learned courts below have already taken a lenient view and have imposed sentence of one year only under Sections 337 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. He submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathetic view of this court and the sentence passed against the petitioner is fit to be sustained and no interference is called for. Findings of this Court 8. He submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathetic view of this court and the sentence passed against the petitioner is fit to be sustained and no interference is called for. Findings of this Court 8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court finds that a formal F.I.R. was registered as Manjhari (Tantnagar O.P.) P.S. Case No.06/2010 dated 10.02.2010 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A) and 427 of IPC against unknown driver of white colour passenger vehicle on the basis of the fardbeyan of the Informant namely, Dibar Samad (P.W.-2) alleging inter-alia that the Informant alongwith his friends Ravindra Birua (deceased) and Jagannath Doraiburu (P.W.-1) were returning from the house of Sideshwar Sawaya on Yamaha Crux Motorcycle No. JH 06A 0219 after attending the Mage festival and the deceased was driving the vehicle. As they reached to the Kokcha (Oraon side) Chaibasa-Manjhari pucca road and had taken the pass with Boyler bus, one white colour passenger vehicle coming towards Chaibasa, driven in high speed and negligently by its driver, dashed the motorcycle and head of Ravindra Birua, who was wearing a helmet, collided with the passenger vehicle. They fell on the road sustaining grievous injuries. Ravindra Birua sustained grievous injuries on his head, face, eye, knee and right side of his head got crushed and his helmet was broken and burst and Ravindra Birua died on the spot. The driver alongwith passenger vehicle fled away. The frontal portion of the motorcycle and right side socket got damaged. 9. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet on 04.05.2010 against the petitioner. Thereafter, cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A), 427 of IPC against the petitioner. 10. On 29.06.2010, the substance of accusation under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A), 427 of IPC was read over and explained to the petitioner in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 09 witnesses. PW-1, Jagannath Doraiburu is an injured witness and PW-2, Dibar Samad is the injured Informant of the case. 11. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 09 witnesses. PW-1, Jagannath Doraiburu is an injured witness and PW-2, Dibar Samad is the injured Informant of the case. PW-3 (Sukur Purty), PW-5 (Suneya Samad) and PW-6 (Mahendra Birwa) reached the place of occurrence at the accident and PW-4 (Lalit Sawaiya) was a passerby through the place of occurrence who had taken both the injured to Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa. P.W.-7 (Dr. Jagannath Hembrom) is the doctor who examined the injured persons, PW.-1 and P.W.-2 and exhibited their injury reports as Exhibit-3 and Exhibit-3/1 respectively. P.W.-8 (Krishna Balabh Prasad) is the Investigating Officer of the case. He exhibited the Inquest Report of the dead body of the deceased as Exhibit-2/1. He seized the Vehicle No. JH 05S 5734 and received the M.V.I. Report and arrested the driver and released him on bail. He proved the formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-4. P.W.-9 (Dr. Dhirendra Kumar) is the doctor who conducted post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased and exhibited the Post-Mortem Report as Exhibit-5. 12. After closure of evidences, statements of petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein he simply denied the incriminating substances put to him and claimed to be innocent. 13. The petitioner has neither examined any witness, nor he has produced any document in the case in his defence. 14. This Court further finds that PW-1 and PW-2 (Informant) are the injured eye witnesses who were riding on the offended motorcycle alongwith the deceased and both have fully supported the prosecution case. PW-3 was a by-passer at the place of occurrence who had seen the dead body of the deceased and the injuries on his face. The place of occurrence has been proved by PW-1, 2, 3, 4 and 8. This Court also finds that the fact of death of Ravindra Birua and the place of occurrence have not been challenged by the defence in cross-examination. 15. This Court further finds that PW-1 and PW-2 have established that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The plea of the petitioner that prosecution has failed to prove that the petitioner was driving the vehicle has been considered by the learned trial court in para 26 of the judgment. The plea of the petitioner that prosecution has failed to prove that the petitioner was driving the vehicle has been considered by the learned trial court in para 26 of the judgment. While rejecting this plea the learned trial court took into consideration the deposition of Investigating Officer P.W. 8, who in para 7 and 14 deposed that he had arrested the accused, and that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have sustained injuries by the accident and became unconscious at the spot. The learned trial court found in the course of cross examination, of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 that defence did not dispute and challenge the accident rather defence had suggested that to celebrate Mage festival injured and deceased had gone to Chitimiti village wherein they consumed Hadia liquor and when returning back to Chaibasa, while overtaking the bus , balance of motorcycle was lost causing the accident. The said suggestion was denied by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. The learned trial court also held that there is no evidence available on record to show that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are in any manner inimical towards the accused. In view of the aforesaid, the learned trial court, upon appreciation of the evidences on record rejected the argument of the defence that accused was not driving the vehicle. This court does not find any illegality or perversity in the aforesaid finding which has been confirmed by the learned lower appellate court. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was released to its owner who disclosed the name of its driver on the date of occurrence as Jagdish Chandra Birua (petitioner). 16. This Court further finds that the learned trial court summarized its finding in Para-25 of its judgment that the injured eye witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2 have clearly proved their presence in the place of occurrence with the deceased and PW-1 has disclosed that the passenger vehicle driving rashly and negligently dashed them from the front and when they regained their consciousness, they came to know that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle. The learned trial court further recorded its findings in Para-28 that it is well proved that the petitioner was driving the passenger vehicle in very high speed and negligently and thereby dashed the motorcycle causing grievous injuries to PW-1 and PW-2 and causing death of Ravindra Birua. 17. The learned trial court further recorded its findings in Para-28 that it is well proved that the petitioner was driving the passenger vehicle in very high speed and negligently and thereby dashed the motorcycle causing grievous injuries to PW-1 and PW-2 and causing death of Ravindra Birua. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and findings, this Court is of the considered view that the learned courts below have arrived at concurrent findings that the petitioner was driving the Passenger Jeep No. JH-05S-5734 rashly and negligently which dashed the Yamaha Crux Motorcycle No. JH 06A 0219 causing injuries to PW-1 and PW-2 and death of Ravindra Birua and the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. 18. Having limited powers for interference under revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any valid ground or irregularity or perversity to interfere with the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below. 19. So far as the point of sentence is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial court has already taken lenient view in the matter and has sentenced the petitioner under Sections 337 and 304A of Indian Penal Code to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year only and the learned appellate court has confirmed the judgment of conviction as well as order of sentence passed by the learned trial court. 20. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances including the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the sentence awarded by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court. Accordingly, no interference in the impugned judgments is called for in the present criminal revision application, which is accordingly dismissed. 21. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 22. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner are cancelled. 23. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are dismissed as not pressed. 24. Office is directed to send back the lower court records to the court concerned. 25. Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX/E-mail.