JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Arup Dey, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State. 3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 19.04.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 13.01.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No.4949 of 2005/T.R. No.1082 of 2012 [arising out of Baghmara (Barora) P.S. Case No. 298/2005 dated 26.12.2005] has been affirmed and the criminal appeal has been dismissed. 4. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 304(A) and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code with the direction that all the sentences would run concurrently. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing his arguments submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, inasmuch as, one of the witnesses i.e. P.W.-2, who has claimed to be the eye witness of the occurrence, has stated that he caught hold of the petitioner, but in fact, the petitioner had surrendered before the learned court below and was not apprehended on the spot. He further submitted that Prosecution Witness Nos. 1, 4 and 6 were declared hostile and the other witnesses who have supported the prosecution case and have claimed to be the eye witnesses were actually not the eye witnesses to the occurrence. The learned counsel also submitted that the manner of the occurrence has not been described and the witnesses have only stated that it was the fault of the truck driver due to which the accident had taken place. He submitted that it is also not mentioned that the truck was moving at a very high speed. Learned counsel further submitted that it is an admitted fact on record that the truck was moving on the proper side of the road. He submitted that it is also not mentioned that the truck was moving at a very high speed. Learned counsel further submitted that it is an admitted fact on record that the truck was moving on the proper side of the road. He submitted that the learned courts below have not appreciated the aforesaid aspects of the matter and accordingly, the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below are perverse which call for interference in revisional jurisdiction. Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State 6. Learned A.P.P. for the Opposite Party opposed the prayer by stating that there are consistent findings recorded by the learned courts below which do not call for any interference by this Court and there are four eye witnesses to the occurrence including P.Ws. 3, 5, 7 and 8 as recorded in Para-11 of the trial court’s judgment. He further submitted that the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is fit to be sustained. Findings of this Court 7. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and going through the impugned judgments and the lower court records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the Informant namely, Md. Mahbub Ansari alleging, inter-alia, that on 26.12.2005 at about 10.00 A.M., his father namely, Pan Babu Ansari alongwith his brother namely, Md. Maksood Ansari had gone to Katras on Motorcycle No. JH-10C-7629 and at about 01.00 P.M., the Informant received information that his father and brother met with an accident. Thereafter, the Informant alongwith his cousin uncle namely, Md. Kamsuddin reached on the road near Village- Jhagrahi and found the dead bodies of his father and brother lying on the left side of the road and the motorcycle of his father was lying under the front wheel of the offending vehicle i.e. Truck No. BHR-6095. The villagers told him that the truck was being driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle and his brother and father died at the spot and the driver ran away fled away from the spot. It was further stated that the motorcycle was being driven by his father and his brother was a pillion rider. 8. The villagers told him that the truck was being driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle and his brother and father died at the spot and the driver ran away fled away from the spot. It was further stated that the motorcycle was being driven by his father and his brother was a pillion rider. 8. On the basis of the fard-beyan of the informant, the case was registered as Baghmara (Barora) P.S. Case No. 298/2005 dated 26.12.2005 under Sections 279, 304(A) and 427 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of Truck No. BHR-6095. During investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report of the dead bodies and sent them for post-mortem to P.M.C.H., Dhanbad. The petitioner surrendered in the court on 16.01.2006 and was released on bail. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner under the same sections and on 06.07.2006, cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioner under the same sections. 9. On 10.01.2007, the substance of accusation under Sections 279, 304(A) and 427 of the Indian Penal Code was read over and explained to the petitioner in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether eleven witnesses in support of its case. P.W.-1 is Shankar Kumar Mandal, P.W.-2 is Tabrej Alam, P.W.-3 is Khurshid Ansari, P.W.-4 is Taiyab Ansari, P.W.-5 is Basant Kumar Mandal, P.W.-6 is Sitaram Mandal, P.W.-7 is Subal Mandal, P.W.-8 is Md. Iftekhan Hussain, P.W.-9 is Mahbub Ansari who is the Informant of the case and he exhibited his signature on the fard-beyan as Exhibit-1 and the signature of his uncle as Exhibit-1/1, P.W.-10 is Ram Awadhesh Ram who is the Investigating Officer of the case and he has exhibited the M.V.I. Report of the offending vehicle as Exhibit-2 and the Inquest Reports of the dead bodies as Exhibit-3 and P.W.-11 is Dr. Shailendra Kumar who conducted post-mortem over the dead bodies of the deceased and he exhibited the post-mortem reports of the dead bodies as Exhibits- 4 and 4/1. 11. On 23-08-2011, the statements of petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein he denied the incriminating substances put to him and claimed to be innocent. The petitioner did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in his defence. 12. 11. On 23-08-2011, the statements of petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein he denied the incriminating substances put to him and claimed to be innocent. The petitioner did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in his defence. 12. The learned trial court considered the oral and documentary evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution and also the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and recorded its findings in Para-11 that P.Ws.3, 5, 7 and 8 have deposed that they were present in their shops situated beside the place of occurrence and they have clearly said that the dash had taken place due to fault of the truck driver. The motorcycle was moving on its left side and due to dash only, Pan Babu Ansar and Maksood Ansari riding on the motorcycle sustained injuries and both died on the place of occurrence. The learned trial court further recorded that P.W.-10 who is the investigating officer has also found in course of investigation that the dash had taken place due to fault of the truck driver. The evidence of these witnesses has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.-11 who is the doctor. The defence has not brought anything on record to discredit the testimonies of these witnesses. The learned trial court convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 304(A) and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly. 13. The learned appellate court also considered the evidences of the prosecution witnesses in detail and also the arguments of the parties and recorded its findings in Paras-21, 22 and 23 which read as under: “21. .................................................................................... The accused was knowing this fact that impact of accident would cause harm to person and property. Though he was not having intention to cause accident, but accident was result of his carelessness due to driving of heavy vehicle in rash and negligent manner. As a result of accident, Pan Babu Ansari and Maksood Ansari expired and motorcycle was damaged badly. 22. With regard to the identity of the accused, P.W.-3 Khurshid Ansari, P.W.- 5 Basant Kumar Mandal, P.W.-7 Subal Mandal, P.W.-8 Md. Iftekhan Hussain deposed that they had seen driver at the place of occurrence and also identified. Therefore, there is consistency in evidence of the witnesses with regard to identification and rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver/appellant. Iftekhan Hussain deposed that they had seen driver at the place of occurrence and also identified. Therefore, there is consistency in evidence of the witnesses with regard to identification and rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver/appellant. Learned court below rightly appreciated the evidence and came to conclusion that prosecution succeeded to establish its case against the appellant. 23. In view of above discussion, I do not find any infirmities in prosecution evidence. Evidence of prosecution is consistent with regard to identification of the accused and wrong side driving of the offending vehicle by him. Therefore, finding of the court below is hereby affirmed. With regard to prayer of learned counsel to release the appellant on probation, this court is of the opinion that accused was careless in driving on wrong side of the road due to which accident took place and two persons namely, Pan Babu Ansari and Maksood Ansari had to loss their life. Appellant does not deserve the benefit of the Probation of the Offenders Act. Appeal has no merit, hence, dismissed.” 14. This Court finds that the P.W.-9 is the Informant of the case and he deposed that on 26.12.2005 at about 01.00 P.M., he was in his house and then his uncle Samsuddin informed that his father and brother met with an accident near Jhagrahi and died at the spot. He reached at the place of occurrence and found the motorcycle under the wheel of the truck and the dead bodies of his father and brother were lying there. He further deposed that the persons present there informed him that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the Truck No. BHR-6095 which dashed against the motorcycle. The motorcycle was being driven by his father and his brother was a pillion rider. He further deposed that his father and brother had gone to Katras at 10.00 A.M.. He exhibited his signature on the fard-beyan and further stated that the occurrence was witnessed by several persons. This Court finds that P.W.-9 has fully supported his version stated in his fardbeyan. 15. This Court further finds that P.W.-3, P.W.-5, P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 are the independent eye witnesses to the occurrence who are having their shops near the place of occurrence and they have fully supported the prosecution case. This Court finds that P.W.-9 has fully supported his version stated in his fardbeyan. 15. This Court further finds that P.W.-3, P.W.-5, P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 are the independent eye witnesses to the occurrence who are having their shops near the place of occurrence and they have fully supported the prosecution case. P.W.- 5 and P.W.-7 have identified the petitioner in court whereas P.W.-3 and P.W.-8 have claimed to identify the petitioner in court who was on representation. 16. This Court further finds that P.W.-10, the investigating officer, has also supported the prosecution case. He has proved the place of occurrence and has exhibited the M.V.I. Report of the offending vehicle as Exhibit-2 and the Inquest Reports of the dead bodies as Exhibit-3. 17. This Court further finds that the Doctor (P.W.-11), who conducted post-mortem over the dead bodies of the deceased, found several grievous injuries on the dead bodies of the deceased and he opined that such injuries were possible by motor vehicle accident. He exhibited the post-mortem reports of the deceased as Exhibits- 4 and 4/1 respectively. 18. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have carefully scrutinized the evidences available on the records of the case and have considered all the aspects of the case and have recorded concurrent findings of facts and convicted the petitioner. From the perusal of the impugned judgments, it appears that the petitioner had run away after the accident which led to spot death of two persons. The learned courts below have appropriately sentenced the petitioner and no ground for interference in the sentence is called for in the present case. 19. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the limited scope for re-appreciation of evidence under revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity or irregularity to interfere with the impugned judgments and accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is upheld and the present criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed. 20. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 21. Bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled. 22. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 23. Office is directed to send back the lower court records to the court concerned. 24. Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX/E-mail.