JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Vishwanath Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State. 3. This Criminal Revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment/order dated 26.02.2014 passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Criminal Appeal No. 06/2012 which was filed against the judgment and order dated 20.12.11 passed by learned S.D.J.M. Deoghar in Jasidih P.S. Case No. 206/99 corresponding to G.R. No. 886 of 1999 and T.R. Case No. 1714/2011 convicting the petitioner under Section 279 and 304 ‘A’ of the Indian Penal Code. The appellate court dismissed the appeal but modified the sentence to S.I. for 4 months for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and S.I. for 1 year for the offence under Section 304A of IPC and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The trial court had sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 304A of IPC and both sentences were directed to run concurrently. Arguments of the petitioner 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically submitted that the impugned judgments are perverse and are fit to be set aside. Learned counsel has referred to the deposition of P.W. 7 and has referred to para 4 of the appellate court’s judgment and submitted that P.W. 7, who is one of the victims has stated that the accident had taken place due to over-turn of the trekker which was caused by burst of left side rear tyre of the trekker. Learned counsel submits that as the accident has taken place due to burst of tyre and accordingly, the finding of the learned courts below that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the trekker is ex-facie perverse and fit to be set aside. It has also been submitted that the investigating officer of the case has not been examined and therefore benefit of doubt should be given to the petitioner. Arguments of the opposite party 5. It has also been submitted that the investigating officer of the case has not been examined and therefore benefit of doubt should be given to the petitioner. Arguments of the opposite party 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has opposed the prayer and submits that there are several eye witnesses to the occurrence who are the victims of the occurrence and there is specific finding recorded by the learned courts below regarding rash and negligent driving of the petitioner on the basis of evidences of record. He submits that no interference is called for in the revisional jurisdiction. He also submits that the learned lower appellate court has already taken a lenient view and reduced the sentence of the petitioner to four months and one year under Section 279 and 300-A of the Indian Penal Code respectively. Findings of this court 6. As per the case of the informant, the deceased travelling on a trekker with milk along with the informant (P.W-4) and other persons including P.W-2 and 3 and many other persons and all were going to Deoghar for their work at 8:15 AM on 20.12.1999 and the trekker was full of passengers. The driver (petitioner) directed Congress Yadav (deceased) to sit on the toolbox of the trekker in the margin of the L- side of the trekker in driver’s row and he was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. The trekker overturned on the left side and as a result Congress Yadav came under the trekker and expired at once on the spot and other passengers also sustained injuries. 7. The case was registered in the concerned police station bearing case number 206/99 under section 279/304 (A)/337/338 of Indian penal code and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted under section 279 and 304 A of Indian penal code against the present petitioner. Cognizance was taken under the said sections on 6.6. 2000 and charges were also famed in the same sections on 8.07.04. At this stage of trial altogether seven witnesses were examined from the side of the prosecution including the informant and the doctor (P.W-6) who conducted the post mortem of the deceased. The informant (P. W-4) and all other P.Ws except the doctor were co-passengers and are eye witness to the occurrence and the informant did not sustain any injury as he had jumped out of the vehicle as it overturned. 8. The informant (P. W-4) and all other P.Ws except the doctor were co-passengers and are eye witness to the occurrence and the informant did not sustain any injury as he had jumped out of the vehicle as it overturned. 8. Altogether 7 witnesses have been examined in the present case and P.W. 4 is the informant of the case. P.W. 1,2, 3 and 7 are co-passengers and P.W. 7 suffered severe injuries. P.W. 6 is the Doctor who conducted the post mortem. Exhibit-1 is the signature of P.W. 3 on the carbon copy of the inquest report. Exhibit-2 is the signature of P.W. 4 on the fardbeyan. Exhibit-3 is the post-mortem report. Exhibit-4 is the injury report of P.W. 7. Exhibit-5 is the signature of Md. Kayum Ansari on the fardbeyan of P.W. 7 and Kayum Ansari is the son of P.W. 7. 9. P.W. 1 has fully supported the prosecution case and has stated that 40 persons had boarded the trekker and most of them were milk sellers. He also deposed that P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 and one muslim were also there in the trekker and the petitioner was driving the trekker rashly and negligently. He has stated that due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, the vehicle overturned and Congress Yadav(deceased) came under the vehicle and died. Congress Yadav was sitting on the tool box and the trekker had climbed over his body and he died on the spot. He has stated that post mortem of the dead body of Congress Yadav was conducted and other persons were treated at Deoghar hospital and the police had taken his statement and he identified the petitioner in the court. 10. P.W. 2 has also fully supported the prosecution case and he has stated that P.W. 3 and Congress Yadav (deceased) had boarded the trekker along with him. Congress Yadav was carrying milk with him and was sitting beside the tool box. He has stated that 20-25 passengers had boarded the trekker. This witness has also supported the prosecution case and has stated that the vehicle overturned and Congress Yadav came under the vehicle received injuries and died on the place of occurrence and that the driver was driving the trekker rashly and negligently. This witness had also received minor injuries. He has stated that 20-25 passengers had boarded the trekker. This witness has also supported the prosecution case and has stated that the vehicle overturned and Congress Yadav came under the vehicle received injuries and died on the place of occurrence and that the driver was driving the trekker rashly and negligently. This witness had also received minor injuries. The police had taken his statement and he identified the petitioner in the court. This witness has also stated that apart from him, P.W. 1, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 were also boarded and travelling on the vehicle. 11. P.W. 3 has also fully supported the prosecution case and he has stated that many persons had boarded the trekker apart from him including P.W. 2, Congress Yadav (deceased) and P.W. 1 and the passengers had boarded the trekker beyond the capacity and some persons boarded on the roof. The deceased was sitting beside the tool box and the petitioner was driving the vehicle and the trekker overturned on the left side. He has stated that the petitioner was driving the trekker rashly and negligently and he had no control over the vehicle and due to overturning, Congress Yadav (deceased) fell down and he died on the spot. This witness had received injuries on his head and other passengers also received injuries. The post mortem of the dead body of Congress Yadav was conducted and the carbon copy of the inquest report was marked as Exhibit-1. He has also stated that after the occurrence, driver had fled away leaving the trekker and he claimed to identify the petitioner in the court. 12. P.W. 4 is the informant of the case. This witness has also fully supported the prosecution case and has stated that P.W. 2, and P.W. 3 had boarded the trekker along with him with milk. He has stated that trekker overturned and Congress Yadav came under the vehicle and died. Wajir Miyan (P.W. 7) also received injuries and after the occurrence, the petitioner fled away. He has also stated that post-mortem was conducted of the deceased. This witness has proved his signature on the fardbeyan as Exhibit-2 and has also stated that the petitioner was driving the vehicle and he claimed to identify the petitioner. Wajir Miyan (P.W. 7) also received injuries and after the occurrence, the petitioner fled away. He has also stated that post-mortem was conducted of the deceased. This witness has proved his signature on the fardbeyan as Exhibit-2 and has also stated that the petitioner was driving the vehicle and he claimed to identify the petitioner. This witness has also stated that 8-10 persons were also sitting on the roof of the trekker and as the vehicle overturned, he jumped out and did not receive any injury. 13. P.W. 5 was also a co-passenger. He also fully supported the prosecution case. He has stated that P.Ws. 2,3,1 had also boarded the trekker and Congress Yadav (deceased) fell down of the vehicle when the trekker overturned. This witness and other passengers had received minor injuries. The trekker was full of passengers and the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. He knew the driver and identified the petitioner. 14. P.W. 6 is the Doctor who conducted the post mortem of the deceased. He gave his opinion that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury caused by hard and blunt substance. He proved the post mortem report as exhibit-3 and also proved the injury report in the writing of another Doctor as Exhibit-4. 15. P.W. 7 is Wajir Miyan who was also a co-passenger. He has deposed that he did not know who was driving the trekker and right tyre of the vehicle was shaking at the place of occurrence due to which the vehicle overturned and his right hand got fractured. He had also received injuries on other parts of the body and one person had died who came under the vehicle. He has stated that his son had brought him to hospital where he received treatment and he had become unconscious. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner had led stress on the evidence of P.W. 7 as P.W. 7 has stated that one of the wheel was shaking and the vehicle overturned due to burst of tyre. He has stated that his son had brought him to hospital where he received treatment and he had become unconscious. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner had led stress on the evidence of P.W. 7 as P.W. 7 has stated that one of the wheel was shaking and the vehicle overturned due to burst of tyre. The argument of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant before the learned lower appellate court had been recorded in para 4 of the impugned judgment which reads as under: “The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the accused is a Khalasi of the said Trekker and the said Trekker was driven by Balgobind Thakur, who is not named in the charge sheet as well as fardbayan. He had not committed any offence and in collusion of the I.O. his name was dragged in place of Driver Balgobind Thakur due to previous enmity with the informant who has disclosed his name as driver and the witnesses are relative of informant. Hence, there evidence are not trustworthy. PW no. 7, Wazin Mian is one of the victim of the said overturn of trekker deposed in his evidence that overturning of taker caused by burst of left side of rear tair of the trakker. Therefore, it is not held due to negligent driving of trakker and the prosecution has not examined I.O. which cause the accused seriously prejudice. This fact of evidence has not consider by the learned trial court. Therefore the conviction and sentence of Sunil Yadav is based on non-trustworthy evidence and fit to be set aside.” 17. The learned appellate court has considered the arguments and upheld the conviction of the petitioner by finding that the present case is based on the travelling eye witnesses and not a case of circumstantial evidence therefore non examination of the I.O. in the present case is not fatal for the prosecution and all the witnesses have identified the petitioner. Learned lower appellate court considered the argument of the petitioner and recorded its finding at paragraph 7 and 8 and found that all the witnesses examined in the court are victim eye witness and all were travelling by the trakker No. BR-40-2930 which overturn at Panchu pura and was driven by Driver Sunil Yadav and all the witnesses also identified him in court when he was physically present and disclosed his name. While considering the evidence of the P.W-7 the learned lower appellate court found that he was one of the traveller victims, who deposed that the trakker overturned at Panchu Pura and Congress Yadav came under the trakker and died on the spot. All witnesses deposed that the deceased was sitting on the tool box and he paid fare to the driver. The appellate court upon appreciating the evidences found that, firstly, the driver allowed the deceased to sit on toolbox at the marine of the trekker; Secondly the Driver had taken passenger beyond the capacity of trekker; thirdly, capacity is equivalent to weight carried by the trekker and fourthly, the weight of the people was exceeding the capacity of trekker which caused burst of the tyre. It has also been recorded that the other eye witnesses have not supported this fact of burst of tyre and stated that the trekker overturned due to negligence and high speed. In this background, the learned lower appellate court held that it is a case of negligent driving and the petitioner was found guilty under Section 279 IPC. 18. This court finds that the learned courts below, after considering the evidences on record, have given consistent finding that the trekker had overturned due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and the trekker was over loaded which was the root cause of the accident. The deceased was sitting on the tool box of the trekker being rashly and negligently driven by the petitioner, as a result of which the trekker over turned and he fell down and his death was caused as he came under the trekker and several persons received injuries. The doctor, who conducted the post mortem of the deceased, was also examined as P.W. 6 before the learned court below, who has fully supported the prosecution case. 19. There being consistent findings recorded by the learned courts below supported by sound reasons, this court finds no reason to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner in revisional jurisdiction as there is neither any perversity nor any illegality in the impugned judgements. 20. 19. There being consistent findings recorded by the learned courts below supported by sound reasons, this court finds no reason to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner in revisional jurisdiction as there is neither any perversity nor any illegality in the impugned judgements. 20. This court also finds that the learned lower appellate court has taken a lenient view in the matter and has reduced the sentence of the petitioner to four months under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and one year under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Learned appellate court was of the view that the petitioner does not deserve maximum sentence and accordingly reduced the sentence. 21. This court finds that the incident is of the year 1999 and more than 20 years have elapsed since the date of occurrence and the petitioner has suffered the rigours of the criminal case for more than 20 years and there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner as is apparent from the judgement passed by the learned trial court, considering these aspects of the matter, ends of justice would be served if the sentence of the petitioner is modified and reduced to some extent. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is further modified and reduced to 9 months simple imprisonment under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and sentence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code as imposed by the learned lower appellate court does not call for any interference. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. The fine amount is to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order to the learned trial court failing which the petitioner will have to undergo the sentence as imposed by the learned appellate court. 22. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition is hereby disposed of with aforesaid modification of sentence. 23. Bail bond furnished by the petitioner is hereby cancelled. 24. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 25. Let the Lower Court’s Records be sent back to the learned court concerned. 26. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “email/FAX”.