JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Vibhuti Sahay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party- State. 3. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.04.2014 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Sahibganj in Cr. Appeal No. 59 of 2013 whereby the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.05.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sahibganj in connection with G.R. Case No. 440 of 2010 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 24 of 2013 convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month and also under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 4 months, has been confirmed by the appellate court and the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. Argument on behalf of the petitioner 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the investigating officer of the case had deposed that he had enquired from the owner of the offending bus who disclosed the name of the petitioner as driving the vehicle during the occurrence, but the owner of the offending bus has not been examined and therefore, the evidence of the investigating officer, so far as the name of the present petitioner is concerned, is hearsay and could not have been used to convict the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the First Information Report was against unknown driver and none of the witnesses disclosed the name of the petitioner at the time of filing of First Information Report or at the time of recording of their statement by the police. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. 6. The learned counsel has relied upon a judgement passed by the Hon’ble supreme court in the case of State of Haryana v. Sher Singh, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 571 and submits that his case is squarely covered by the said judgement. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. 6. The learned counsel has relied upon a judgement passed by the Hon’ble supreme court in the case of State of Haryana v. Sher Singh, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 571 and submits that his case is squarely covered by the said judgement. Argument on behalf of the Opposite Party 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, opposes the prayer and submits that the finding of both the courts below have been arrived at after taking into consideration all the material evidences on record and there are eye-witnesses to the occurrence and the witnesses who have taken name of the petitioner during the trial. The learned counsel submits that the witnesses were also subjected to cross-examination by the defence and after appreciating the entire evidences on record, the petitioner has been convicted. 8. The learned counsel has also submitted that the occurrence had taken place in front of the house of the informant and in the accident, his sister, who was pregnant, had expired. The learned counsel submits that considering the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, there is no scope for reappreciating the evidences on record and come to a different finding as both the learned courts below have given consistent finding of facts. He also submits that considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy on the point of sentence also. Findings of this Court 9. This Court finds that as per the prosecution case, one Damodar Mandal (P.W. 1) the brother of deceased Chanchal Devi filed a written report before the officer in-charge of the concerned police station on 15.12.2010 stating therein that in the early morning of the said day at about 5 a.m., when he along with his sister Chanchal Devi (deceased) was proceeding for bringing fuel wood and when both of them were on the way by the side of the road, a bus named and styled as Shiv Shakti Bus bearing registration no. JH04C-0384 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver from north direction dashed against his sister as a result of which she came under the front wheel and was crushed and died on the spot instantaneously. It was also alleged in the First Information Report that the driver of the bus was moving speedily towards southern region. JH04C-0384 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver from north direction dashed against his sister as a result of which she came under the front wheel and was crushed and died on the spot instantaneously. It was also alleged in the First Information Report that the driver of the bus was moving speedily towards southern region. It was claimed that the aforesaid incident was also witnessed by the co-villagers namely Rajendra Mandal (P.W. 2), Jhori Mandal (P.W. 3), Bhim Mandal (P.W. 6) and Sunil Ravidas (not examined) and others. 10. On the basis of the written report, the case was registered against unknown driver and the charge-sheet was submitted against the present petitioner under Section 304A and Section 279 of Indian Penal Code. The cognizance was taken against the petitioner and when the accusation was explained, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of evidence, both oral and documentary evidences were led before the learned trial court. The statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which the accused totally denied the allegation and claimed to be innocent. However, no defence evidence was led by the accused. 11. During the course of trial, altogether six prosecution witnesses were examined including the informant, who was examined as P.W. 1, the co-villagers P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 6, the investigating officer as P.W. 4 and the doctor who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased as P.W. 5. 12. The learned trial court has considered the evidence of P.W. 1 who has fully supported the prosecution case. The learned trial court has recorded that P.W. 1 in para 3 of the evidence had stated that the petitioner was driving the said bus and at the time of occurrence P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were also present and they had disclosed the name of the driver. The learned trial court has also considered the evidence of P.W. 2, who has also fully supported the occurrence and has identified his signature on the inquest report and has also stated that name of the driver was disclosed by him in the concerned police station. He has also emphatically stated that the petitioner was the driver and he knew him from before. He has also emphatically stated that the petitioner was the driver and he knew him from before. P.W. 3 has also fully supported the prosecution case and stated that the deceased was pregnant and the bus was coming at a very high speed. He has stated that the deceased expired on the spot. He also identified the petitioner as the driver of the truck during the occurrence. P.W-3 identified his signature on the inquest report. P.W. 3 has also fully supported the prosecution case and has taken the name of the petitioner during his evidence and has also stated that he knew the petitioner from before. P.W. 4 is the investigating officer and he has fully supported the prosecution case. He has stated that in the First Information Report the name of the driver was not mentioned and the informant and the other witnesses did not take the name of the driver. He has stated that the petitioner was made accused on the basis of para 37 of the case-diary wherein it has been recorded that the owner of the bus had disclosed that petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle and that after the incident, petitioner is not available. This Court also finds that the P.W. 5 was the doctor who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and the post-mortem report fully supports the prosecution case. The post-mortem report has also been exhibited. 13. This Court finds that considering the eye-witnesses to the occurrence who have consistently stated that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle on the date of the incident as well as the other materials on record including the inquest report and the post-mortem report, the learned trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court, while considering the sentence of the petitioner also considered the fact that the offence of the petitioner was his first offence. This Court finds that the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner by a well-reasoned judgment. 14. The learned trial court, while considering the sentence of the petitioner also considered the fact that the offence of the petitioner was his first offence. This Court finds that the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner by a well-reasoned judgment. 14. This Court further finds that the learned lower appellate court, after considering the evidences on record, recorded concurrent finding and found that though there are some discrepancies and inconsistencies appearing in the testimony of the witnesses regarding non-disclosure of the name of the petitioner including non-examination of the bus-owner, the same does not affect the prosecution which is otherwise proved from the testimony of the natural and competent witnesses of the occurrence as they are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence being resident of in front of the road where the accident occurred and they have given the true picture of occurrence having no animosity at all against the petitioner to falsely implicate him in the case. The learned lower appellate court accordingly held that the plea of false implication of the petitioner does not appear to be natural and probable in the fact and circumstances of the case. 15. The learned lower appellate court also considered that the First Information Report was lodged against an unknown driver who is admittedly resident of village Govindpur under District Bhagalpur and therefore, the informant cannot be expected to have been aware about the factum of usual driving of the offending vehicle by the petitioner and it has come in the evidence from his testimony that he came to know about the name of the petitioner on the narration of P.W. 2 and 3 who happen to be resident of village Bhagiya where usually the said vehicle ply in ordinary course. Accordingly, the learned court held that non-disclosure of the name of the petitioner at the time of accident appears to be natural and probable and as such, the same does not defeat the case of the prosecution. 16. This Court finds that the learned lower appellate court also scrutinized the evidence of the witnesses and also considered the reason of non-disclosure of the name of the petitioner by the informant in the First Information Report and also how the informant came to know about the name of the driver from P.W. 2 and 3, who knew the driver and his name. 17. 17. After considering the aforesaid materials the learned lower appellate court held as under: “14. Thus keeping in mind the availability of incriminating evidence showing complicity of the appellant in the alleged act of driving the offending bus on public way in a rash or negligent manner causing the death of a village woman and expulsion of her foetus, I do not find any reason to come to a different finding than one recorded by the learned court below, hence it has to be held that the learned court below has carefully appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly come to the finding of the guilt of the appellant and his judgment is so sound and cogent that deserves to be affirmed.” 18. In the judgement, State of Haryana v. Sher Singh, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 571 , the deceased was hit by a bus belonging to Haryana Roadways and it was alleged that the respondent of the case was driving the offending vehicle. The sole eyewitness did not support the prosecution version, but placed reliance on the statement of the deceased before ASI (PW 8), which was treated to be a dying declaration and in dying declaration also the name of the accused was not mentioned. The trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced him. The appeal was dismissed. In the revision, the High Court inter alia found that the so-called eyewitness did not support the prosecution version and the acquittal was directed. Before the Hon’ble supreme court, it was pointed out that the official of the Haryana Roadways (PW 5) clearly stated that the bus on the particular date was allotted to the accused. The Hon’ble supreme court refused to interfere with the order of revision passed by the high court by holding that the evidence adduced to link the accused to the alleged crime was scanty as there was no specific material to show that the respondent was driving the vehicle at the time the accident took place. 19. The said judgement does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this case the eye witnesses to the occurrence have consistently stated that the vehicle was being driven by the petitioner in rash and negligent manner which killed the pregnant victim on the spot. 20. 19. The said judgement does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this case the eye witnesses to the occurrence have consistently stated that the vehicle was being driven by the petitioner in rash and negligent manner which killed the pregnant victim on the spot. 20. This Court finds that the learned lower appellate court upheld the conviction of the petitioner by carefully scrutinizing the evidence of the witnesses, particularly the eye-witnesses. This Court finds that the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court is a well-reasoned judgment considering the materials on record as well as the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show any animosity between the petitioner and any of the witnesses and there is neither any reason nor any such argument has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to reflect any iota of animosity between the petitioner and any of the witnesses to falsely implicate the petitioner. Both the learned courts below found the evidence against the petitioner consistent and reliable. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below and accordingly, there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by the learned courts below in this revision. 21. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the present revision petition is devoid of any merits and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. 22. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 23. Let the Lower Court’s Records be sent back to the court concerned. 24. Bail bond furnished by the petitioner is hereby cancelled. 25. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘email/FAX’.