JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This criminal revision application has been filed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 22.05.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro) in Criminal Appeal No. 54/2009 whereby the order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat has been confirmed. 3. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 279 IPC, three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 337 IPC, six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 338 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court finds that the fardbeyan of the Informant was recorded on 19-05-2002 at about 09:00 P.M. before the Police Officer in Bokaro General Hospital alleging that on the same day at about 11:00 A.M. his uncle Ganesh Mahto, his brother Baijnath Mahto and other relatives were returning to their home by an Ambassador Car bearing No. BR-2B-3000 and the Shamsher Alam was the driver of the said car. At about 04:30 P.M. near Kalyanpur Village, a Sinha Bus bearing No. BPY-7301 which was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver and was coming from Ramgarh side, dashed to the aforesaid car due to which all the persons in the car sustained injuries and they were admitted in Jainamore Government Hospital and due to serious injuries, they were referred to B.G.H. Bokaro. The brother of the Informant namely, Baijnath Mahto died on the way. 5. On the basis of the fardbeyan, the case was registered as Jaridih P.S. Case No. 48/2002. After submission of charge-sheet, on 04.09.2002, cognizance of the offence in the case was taken and on 18.07.2003, the substance of accusation was read over and explained to the petitioner in Hindi to which pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 09 witnesses .PW-9 is the doctor who examined the injured persons including Informant and has proved the Injury Reports. 7. 6. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 09 witnesses .PW-9 is the doctor who examined the injured persons including Informant and has proved the Injury Reports. 7. The learned trial court, after considering the evidences and the materials on record, recorded its findings in Para-17 of the judgment that on 19-05-2002 at 04:30 P.M. the Sinha Bus No. 7301 was being driven by the petitioner rashly and negligently and he dashed into a car due to which the persons sitting in the car sustained injuries and out of them, one person namely, Baijnath Mahto died after sometime on the way to Hospital and some persons sustained simple injuries and some other persons sustained grievous injuries and the prosecution case stands proved under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC against the petitioner. 8. The appellate court, after considering the evidences and materials on record, has recorded its findings in Para-12 and also considered that the I.O. was not examined. However the appellate court recorded a finding on the basis of materials on record that the petitioner was driving the Bus on the date and time of the occurrence, rashly and negligently and dashed into the Ambassador Car No. BR 2B-3000 which was coming from opposite direction and subsequently out of the accident two persons died and the rest of the persons sustained severe injuries and the car was damaged. The learned appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned judgments submits that there is no direct evidence that the petitioner was driving the bus and it has not come in evidence that the ambassador car with which the accident had taken place was being driven by the driver having driving license. He submits that the accident had taken place at the turn of the road. He further submits that in the aforesaid view of the matter, the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly, the impugned judgments suffer from perversity. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel has submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has not denied the fact that the petitioner was driving the bus. 10. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel has submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has not denied the fact that the petitioner was driving the bus. 10. On the point of sentence, the learned counsel submits that the incident is of the year 2002 and as on date, the petitioner is about 51 years of age and there has been no criminal antecedent against the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner has remained in custody in connection with the case for a period of about four months and twenty days and maximum punishment awarded to the petitioner by the learned courts below is one year. The learned counsel submits that considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the sentence of the petitioner may be modified. He also submits that the petitioner is also ready to deposit certain amount of fine as may be imposed by this Court. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party, on the other hand, opposes the prayer and submits that there are concurrent finding of facts recorded by the learned court below, there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidence at this stage. She submits that the petitioner has not been able to point out any perversity in the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below. She further submits that since number of persons were injured and two of them had died due to accident, no lenient view should be taken in the case of the petitioner. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the driver of the ambassador car with which the accident had taken place was examined before the learned court below as PW-7 and it was for the defence to examine him on the point of his driving license or otherwise, which has not been done. So far as the fact that the petitioner was driving the bus was inter-alia stated by PW-5 and it has been recorded in the judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments also that in the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner has not denied the fact that he was driving the bus. It is also not in dispute that several persons had suffered injury and two persons had expired as a consequence of the accident. This Court further finds that the learned courts below have recorded consistent findings and have held the petitioner guilty of offence under Sections 279, 377, 338 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code. 13. This court finds that the both the learned court below have given consistent finding of facts and have convicted the petitioner under the sections mentioned above. This court has gone through the judgments and finds that they are well reasoned judgments. This court does not find any illegality or perversity in the judgments passed by the learned court below calling for any interference under revisional jurisdiction. 14. However, considering the fact that the date of incident is of the year 2002 and the petitioner has faced rigors of criminal case for a long time and the petitioner had no criminal antecedent, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioner. The sentence under 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code do not require any interference and the sentence of the petitioner under section 304(A) is modified and reduced to a period of nine months with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited within three months from today before the learned court below. All sentences to run concurrently as directed by the learned trial court. If the fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the petitioner would undergo the punishment imposed by the learned court below. 15. Accordingly, the present revision application is hereby disposed of with the aforesaid modification of sentence. 16. The bail bond furnished by the petitioner is hereby cancelled. 17. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 18. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also dismissed as not pressed. 19. Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to the learned court below. 20. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘email/FAX’.