JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Rajiv Lochan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pandey, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-State. 3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 11.04.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 117/2011 whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 18.05.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 640 of 2002/Trial No. 136 of 2011 (arising out of Govindpur P.S. Case No. 36/2002 dated 12.03.2002) 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, 304A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, Simple Imprisonment for six months under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for six months under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below regarding rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, but the fact remains that the date of the incident is 12.03.2002 and the present age of the petitioner is about 70 years and he has already remained in custody for some period during pendency of the criminal revision petition. He submitted that considering the aforesaid aspects of the case, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence of the petitioner may be modified and limited to the period already undergone in judicial custody by imposing some fine amount. Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State 6. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, submitted that there was complete lack of care on the part of the petitioner while driving the truck which was being driven at the speed of 40 Kms. per hour at the busy place on the road. He further submitted that after the accident, the petitioner ran away from the spot, although he was identified by the eye witnesses to the occurrence. per hour at the busy place on the road. He further submitted that after the accident, the petitioner ran away from the spot, although he was identified by the eye witnesses to the occurrence. He also submitted that the learned courts below have already taken a lenient view in the matter while sentencing the petitioner for a period of six months under each section and all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently and therefore, the sentences of the petitioner do not require any reduction. 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. Manjoor Alam alleging inter-alia that on 12.03.2002 at about 05.30 P.M., at Village- Jangalpur, P.S. Govindpur, District- Dhanbad, the Informant alongwith his younger brother namely, Md. Maksood Alam @ Pappu was coming with Motorcycle No. JH-10A-3544 from village pond side and his brother was crossing the road with the motorcycle on foot, then a truck bearing No. BRW-7423 driven by its driver namely, Md. Hanif (the petitioner) in rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle and crushed his brother. The motorcycle got entangled with the truck and therefore, the truck was stopped, but the petitioner ran away from the spot and his brother expired at the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by several villagers. 8. On the basis of the fard-beyan of the informant, the case was registered as Govindpur P.S. Case No. 36/2002 dated 12.03.2002 under Sections 279, 304A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for post-mortem to P.M.C.H., Dhanbad. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner under the same sections and on 22.10.2002, cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioner under the same sections. 9. On 15.09.2007, the substance of accusation under Sections 279, 304A 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. 9. On 15.09.2007, the substance of accusation under Sections 279, 304A 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 four witnesses in support of its case. P.W.-1 is Yogesh Kumar Pandey, P.W.-2 is Md. Manjoor Alam who is the informant of the case, P.W.-3 is Md. Badruddin Ansari and P.W.-4 is Dr. Shailendra Kumar who had conducted post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased. The prosecution exhibited the signature of the informant on the fardbeyan as Exhibit-1 and the Post-Mortem Report of the deceased as Exhibit-2. 11. On 13.01.2011, the statements of petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein he denied the incriminating evidences put to him and claimed to be innocent. The petitioner did not produce any witness, but the signature of P.W.-4 on Kaman of Chowkidar, delivery challan and the inquest report have been exhibited as Exhibits- A, A/1 and A/2 respectively on behalf of the petitioner in defence. 12. The learned trial court considered the evidences available on record and also the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and with regard to the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, recorded its findings in Para-8 which read as under: “8. Substantiating the story of prosecution, Yogesh Kumar Pandey (P.W.-1) and Badruddin Ansari (P.W.-3) have deposed that Maksud Alam was crossing the road. The truck bearing registration No. BRW-7423 hit him. Maksud Alam died on the spot. The motorcycle was damaged. They are eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence. Yogesh Kr Pandey is resident of village where the incident took place. His house is situated near place of occurrence. His presence in his house and on hearing sound of collision, he came out of his house and saw the occurrence. His presence at the place of occurrence is natural. Yogesh Kr Pandey is independent witness who has fully supported the story of prosecution. There is no material contradiction in statements of prosecution witnesses to rebut their statements in the cross-examination. There is consistency in their evidence.” 13. With regard to the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, the learned trial court recorded its findings in Para-9 which read as under: “9. ......................................... Md. There is no material contradiction in statements of prosecution witnesses to rebut their statements in the cross-examination. There is consistency in their evidence.” 13. With regard to the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, the learned trial court recorded its findings in Para-9 which read as under: “9. ......................................... Md. Manzoor Alam (P.W.-2), Yogesh Kr Pandey (P.W.-1) and Md. Badruddin Ansari (P.W.- 3) have deposed that the accident took place on a road at around 5:30 P.M. on 12.03.2002. Md. Maksud Alam @ Pappu was crossing the road. The truck no. BRW-7423 ran over him. Md. Maksud Alam died on the spot. The bike was damaged. Dr. Shailendra Kumar (P.W.-4) who conducted post-mortem report has proved facts of death of one Maksud Alam. Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-2) also corroborates death of Maksud Alam. The facts that accused Hanif was driving truck no. BRW- 7423 on public way on 12/3/2002 and he ran over Maksud Alam @ Pappu and he (Maksud Alam @ Pappu) died on the spot shows that there is direct nexus between death of Maksud Alam @ Pappu and rash and negligent act of driver Hanif. Negligent driving caused death of a person. The act of the accused does not amount to culpable homicide as accused had no intention to kill him. 14. With regard to the offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned trial court recorded its findings in Para- 10 which read as under: “10. Md. Manzoor Alam (P.W.-2) has deposed that his younger brother Maksud Alam was crossing the road and he was hit by running truck. Yogesh Kr Pandey (P.W.-1) has seen that truck collided with the motorcycle. Md. Badrudding (P.W.-3) has stated in Para-6 that the motorcycle was damaged. Accused Hanif caused damage to the motorcycle by hitting it. The price of the motorcycle is more than rupees fifty.” 15. The learned trial court summarized its findings in Para-11, 12 and 13 which read as under: “11. There is consistency in the deposition of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3. There are no material contradictions brought by the defence in the cross-examination. P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.- 3 are eye witnesses. They are fully reliable witnesses. Their evidence is relied upon. 12. ………………….. Md. Manzoor Alam (P.W.-2) and Md. There is consistency in the deposition of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3. There are no material contradictions brought by the defence in the cross-examination. P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.- 3 are eye witnesses. They are fully reliable witnesses. Their evidence is relied upon. 12. ………………….. Md. Manzoor Alam (P.W.-2) and Md. Badruddin Ansari (P.W.-3) have fully supported the facts that the accident took place on an unmetalled road which is public one. 13. Being regarded to what has been discussed referred to hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs, scrutiny of evidence available on record ad analysis of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that the prosecution has established accusation made against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.” 16. The learned trial court convicted the petitioner under Sections 279, 304A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months for each of the offences and directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 17. The learned appellate court also considered the evidences available on record and the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and recorded its findings and views in Paras-14 and 15 which read as under: “14. In this case, prosecution adduced evidence that offending vehicle bearing No. BRW-7423 was being driven in rash and negligent manner at busy place without taking care, that accused was driving the said offending vehicle at the relevant time of accident, witnesses had seen the appellant while he was running from the spot. Doctor proved post-mortem report by which it has been corroborated that deceased Maksood Alam sustained crush injury. ……” 15. Negligence amounts want of care. Speed of truck at 40 K.M. per hour on a high way on running road can be normal, but same speed at a village side in busy place particularly at a square is a high speed. P.W.-3 Md. Badruddin Ansari is himself a driver and he deposed that speed of the truck might have been 40 K.M. per hour and road was 10 feet wide. To run a heavy vehicle at the speed of 40 K.M. per hour on a 10 feet wide road in a village square is high speed and is suggestive that driver was careless and did not take care in driving the vehicle. Criminal rashness amounts recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. To run a heavy vehicle at the speed of 40 K.M. per hour on a 10 feet wide road in a village square is high speed and is suggestive that driver was careless and did not take care in driving the vehicle. Criminal rashness amounts recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is failure to exercise the reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular. Act of rashness is opposed to a deliberate act. Negligence in a common parlance means and implies failure to exercise due care, expected from reasonable and prudent person. It is a breach of duty and shameful disregard of safety of others. To establish offence under Section 304A I.P.C., there must be direct nexus between death of person and rash and negligent act of the accused. 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, Md. Maksood Alam @ Pappu expired and motorcycle was damaged badly. Identity of the accused has been established by the prosecution. Duty of the I.O. is to collect evidence and to put together. In case of accident, I.O. cannot be treated as prime witness where eye witnesses are available to establish identity of the accused. If accused is given benefit of non-examination of I.O., then it will tantamount to play in the hands of the I.O.. In this case, identity of accused has been established, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the accused. Therefore, non-examination of the I.O. is not fatal to the prosecution.” 18. This Court finds that the P.W.-2 is the Informant of the case and he deposed that the accident took place on a road on 12.03.2002 between 5:30 to 6:00 P.M. and he saw the accident from a distance of 10-12 feet. His younger brother Maksud Alam was carrying motorcycle by pushing it on the road. The driver of the truck was driving the vehicle negligently. As soon as Maksud was crossing the road, the truck bearing BRW-7423 hit the motorcycle and Maksud. The name of the driver was Hanif. His younger brother Maksud Alam was carrying motorcycle by pushing it on the road. The driver of the truck was driving the vehicle negligently. As soon as Maksud was crossing the road, the truck bearing BRW-7423 hit the motorcycle and Maksud. The name of the driver was Hanif. The driver of the truck tried to flee away alongwith the vehicle, but he could not do so because the motorcycle was stuck in the front wheel of the truck. He identified the petitioner in court. This Court finds that P.W.-2 is an eye witness to the occurrence and he has fully supported the prosecution case. 19. This Court further finds that P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 have corroborated the date, time and place of occurrence and also the facts that the truck bearing no. BRW-7423 collided with the motorcycle, victim was lying dead on the spot, the motorcycle was damaged and the driver of the truck was running away from the spot. Both have identified the driver of the truck in court who is the petitioner. 20. This Court further finds that P.W.-4 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased and found lacerated wounds 8” x 5” x brain deep on left side of head with multiple fracture of frontal parietal temporal and occipital bones of the skull, brain matter was coming out and other injuries and he stated the cause of death as death due to hard blunt force brain cerebral injury. He proved the postmortem report as Exhibit-2. 21. This Court finds that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by the petitioner at a busy place and there is no dispute that the victim died on the spot and his motorcycle got damaged and after the accident, the petitioner had ran away from the spot and P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 have identified the driver as the petitioner. 22. This Court finds that the P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 have fully established the date, time, place and the manner of occurrence and P.W.-4 has established the proximity of death of the victim with the accident caused by the offending truck and so, non-examination of the investigating officer does not affect the prosecution case in any way. 23. 22. This Court finds that the P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 have fully established the date, time, place and the manner of occurrence and P.W.-4 has established the proximity of death of the victim with the accident caused by the offending truck and so, non-examination of the investigating officer does not affect the prosecution case in any way. 23. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have carefully scrutinized the evidences available on the records of the case and have returned concurrent findings of facts. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the limited scope for interference under revisional jurisdiction, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments. This Court further finds that the learned trial court has already taken a lenient view and has sentenced the petitioner to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months only under each section and all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently which have been affirmed by the learned appellate court. 24. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and the order of 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. 25. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 26. Bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled. 27. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. 28. Office is directed to send back the lower court records to the court concerned. 29. Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX/E-mail.