JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This criminal revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 23.05.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-3rd, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2010 whereby Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.03.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Class, Dhanbad in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 150/2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1694/2000 has been confirmed. The learned trial court found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Arguments of the petitioner: 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted only on the evidence of two witnesses i.e. the informant of the case and the Doctor. He further submits that even the investigating officer of the case has not been examined before the learned court below to find out the exact cause of death. He has also submitted that the present incident is of the year 2000 and during trial, the petitioner has remained in custody for about two months and about 20 years has now elapsed from the date of the incident, so some sympathetic view may be taken on the point of sentence. Arguments of the opposite party: 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer and submits that in the present case a child expired on the spot due to the accident and the petitioner was apprehended after being chased when he was running away immediately after the accident. He submits that the child of the informant had expired on the spot and it has come in evidence of the informant that the truck was being driven at the speed of 100 Km/h. He has also submitted that the petitioner remained in denial in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and not given any explanation or any reason for the accident. He submits that the petitioner was identified by the informant even in the court. Findings of this court: 5. He submits that the petitioner was identified by the informant even in the court. Findings of this court: 5. As per the prosecution case, on 15.06.2000 at about 7:30 pm, when the informant was waiting for the school bus with his daughter in front of his residence, in the meantime a truck bearing registration No. WB-37-2220 being driven by the petitioner, rashly and negligently, from Nirsa side dashed his daughter as a result she died on the spot. On the basis of this information, the case was registered as Govindpur P.S. Case No. 150/2000 dated 15.06.2000 under Sections 279/304(A) of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner being the driver of the said vehicle. The charge-sheet was also submitted under the said sections and the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. This Court further finds that before the learned court below two witnesses were examined. PW-1 is a formal witness, the Doctor and PW-2 is the informant of the case. PW-1 being the Doctor has proved the post-mortem report which was marked as Exhibit-1 and PW-1 during his examination has found numerous injuries on the dead body of the deceased and in the opinion of the doctor such type of injuries are possible only in a road accident. 7. PW-2 who is the informant, father of the deceased and the eye-witness to the occurrence and he has fully supported the prosecution case. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that the occurrence took place on 15.06.2000 at 7:30 p.m. in the morning when he was standing at the door by the side of road of his house along with his child and one truck bearing registration No. WB-37-2220 was coming rashly and negligently with a speed of 100 Km/h and turned and crushed his child who died on the spot. He has also proved his fardbeyan which was recorded by the Sub-Inspector upon which he had put his signature and the same was marked as Exhibit-2. PW-2 has also stated that the driver tried to flee away but after chase he was caught at a distance of 10 meters. He has also deposed that at the place of occurrence his one son and one daughter were present and on the other side of the road there were several boys. 8. PW-2 has also stated that the driver tried to flee away but after chase he was caught at a distance of 10 meters. He has also deposed that at the place of occurrence his one son and one daughter were present and on the other side of the road there were several boys. 8. The learned trial court, after considering the materials on record, held the petitioner guilty and convicted him to rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently. The learned trial court has also held that although investigating officer of the case was not examined but there was no dispute about the occurrence. 9. The learned lower appellate court by its judgment dated 23rd May, 2014 independently considered the evidences of the PW-1 and PW-2 and also considered that under Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act there is no particular number of witnesses prescribed to convict a person and the evidence of sole witness, if cogent and reliable, can also be the basis of conviction. 10. The learned lower appellate court held that the prosecution succeeded in establishing the case that the occurrence took place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and he was caught by the informant and accordingly was of the considered view that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo the aforesaid sentence. 11. Upon perusal of the aforesaid two judgments passed by the learned courts below, this Court finds that both the judgments are well-reasoned judgment and merely because other charge-sheeted witnesses were not examined before the learned trial court, the same is not fatal to the prosecution case. The learned courts below has considered the reliability of the evidence of PW-2 who is not only an eye-witness to the occurrence but also caught hold of the petitioner after the accident and it has come in evidence that the petitioner was driving the said vehicle at a high speed of 100 Km/h at a place where children were standing. The learned courts below has considered the reliability of the evidence of PW-2 who is not only an eye-witness to the occurrence but also caught hold of the petitioner after the accident and it has come in evidence that the petitioner was driving the said vehicle at a high speed of 100 Km/h at a place where children were standing. The evidence of PW-2 is fully corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor (PW-1) who has exhibited the post-mortem report and has described the nature of injuries and was of the opinion that such type of injuries is possible only in a road accident. Thus, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 clearly establishes the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubts. 12. The argument of the petitioner that due to non-examination of the investigating officer the exact cause of death could not be found out, is fit to be rejected. This court finds that in the present case the PW-2 has fully supported the prosecution case and the petitioner was caught hold upon chase at a distance of about 10 meters from the accident and the cause of death has been fully established by the evidence of the Doctor. Thus, non-examination of the investigating officer of the case has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. 13. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments and there is no scope of interference in the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below. 14. Considering the nature of offence and the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that no lenient view on the point of sentence is required to be taken in the matter of such accident and accordingly the punishment imposed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned lower appellate court does not call for any interference by this court. 15. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. 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 ‘e-mail/FAX’.