ORDER : 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity “Cr.P.C.”) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.01.2020 passed by Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 211/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Section 304-A of IPC RI for one year Section 279 of IPC RI for one month and fine of Rs. 500/- Section 192-A of Motor Vehicle Act RI for three months and fine of Rs. 3000/- 2. Station House Officer, Ratanpur, Bilaspur charge sheeted the applicant herein alleging that on 02.02.2015 the applicant while driving the offending truck bearing Registration No. HR-26-6731 rashly and negligently caused death of Abhishek Shrivastava which is not amounting to culpable homicide. The applicant abjured his guilt and took the plea that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. 3. During the Course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents to bring home the offence, whereas the defence neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document in support of its defence. 4. Upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur vide its judgment dated 26.09.2019 passed in Criminal Case No. 241/2015 convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicle Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for one month and fine of Rs. 500/- to undergo RI for one year; and to undergo RI for 3 months and fine of Rs. 3000/- respectively. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. In appeal, preferred by the applicant, learned Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur vide order dated 06.01.2020 in Criminal Appeal No. 211/2019 affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned JMFC and dismissed the appeal, against which, the applicant filed instant criminal revision. 6. Shri Lavkush Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that both the Courts below have committed legal error in convicting the applicant under the aforesaid offences as the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. 6. Shri Lavkush Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that both the Courts below have committed legal error in convicting the applicant under the aforesaid offences as the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. He would alternatively submit that jail sentence awarded to the applicant is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence as the applicant already remained in custody from 06.01.2020 to 22.07.2020 therefore, the period already undergone by the applicant be held to be sufficient sentence against the sentence awarded by the Court below and revision be allowed by modifying the sentence awarded. 7. Per contra, Ms. Priyamvada Singh, Dy. GA for the respondent/State would submit that the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded is based on evidence available on record and the same is well merited. Therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in revisional jurisdiction and the instant criminal revision deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and records of the Courts below with utmost circumspection. 9. The following two questions would arise for consideration in the instant criminal revision: (i) Whether the prosecution has proved the offences under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC and Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, against the applicant beyond reasonable doubt? (ii) Whether sentence awarded to the applicant is just and proper? 10. Answer to question No. 1: The trial Magistrate in its judgment dated 26.09.2019 has clearly recorded a finding that the applicant while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently dashed it from behind to the motorcycle of Abhishek Shrivastava which led to his death and in order to reach such finding, the trial Court has relied upon the testimony of the eye witnesses namely Uday Prakash (PW-1), Upesh Shrivastava (PW-3) and Yogesh Rao Bhosle (PW-4). In their evidence, they have categorically identified the applicant while causing the said accident in a rash and negligent manner. Further, the applicant has also not produced the permit of the offending truck. So, the trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, rightly came to the conclusion that the applicant was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the Abhishek Shrivastava, as a result of which, he succumbed to the injuries. So, the trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, rightly came to the conclusion that the applicant was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the Abhishek Shrivastava, as a result of which, he succumbed to the injuries. The said injuries have been duly verified and evidence has been supported by the Dr. A.K. Shrivastava (PW-5). Thus the act of the applicant falls within the ambit of Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC and also in violation of not possessing the valid permit and committed breach of the provisions of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act punishable under Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has not seriously disputed the said finding. 11. On an appeal being preferred by the applicant, the appellate Court holding that the applicant was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently dashed Abhishek Shrivastava, affirmed the order of learned Magistrate. 12. After hearing counsel for the parties and after carefully going through the records, this Court do not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the two Courts below holding the applicant guilty for the offences mentioned above. 13. Answer to question No. 2: The determination of issue with regard to conviction brings this Court to reasonableness of sentence awarded considering the facts and circumstances of the case. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has already suffered a lot by remaining jail for more than six months. Therefore, taking lenient view of the matter, the sentence awarded to the applicant be reduced to the period already undergone by him holding it to be sufficient sentence. 14. In State of Karnataka vs. Sharanappa Basnagouda Aregoudar, AIR 2002 SC 1529 , while considering the scope of interference in revision filed against conviction and sentence for offence under Section 304-A IPC, their Lordships in paragraph 7 and 8 observed as under: “7. We are of the view that having regard to the serious nature of the accident, which resulted in the death of four persons, the learned Single Judge should not have interfered with the sentence imposed by the court below. It may create and set an unhealthy precedent and send wrong signals to the subordinate courts which have to deal with several such accident cases. It may create and set an unhealthy precedent and send wrong signals to the subordinate courts which have to deal with several such accident cases. If the accused are found guilty of rash and negligent driving, courts have to be on guard to ensure that they do not escape the clutches of law very lightly. The sentence imposed by the courts should have deterrent effect on potential wrong-doers and it should commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. Of course, the Courts are given discretion in the matter of sentence to take stock of the wide and varying range of facts that might be relevant for fixing the quantum of sentence, but the discretion shall be exercised with due regard to larger interest of the society and it is needless to add that passing of sentence on the offender is probably the most public face of the criminal justice system. 8. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hold that the respondent is liable to undergo the sentence imposed by the trial Magistrate and affirmed by the appellate court. Consequently, we direct that for the offence punishable under Section 304A, the respondent be taken into custody to undergo a simple imprisonment for six months. As regards offences under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC, no separate sentence has been awarded by the trial Magistrate. The direction of the trial Magistrate is maintained.” 15. In view of the aforesaid analysis, conviction of accused/applicant under the aforesaid sections recorded by the Court below is hereby maintained. However, in the State of Karnataka (Supra) six months SI was held to be sufficient sentence for offence under Section 304-A of IPC. So, considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case and the fact that applicant has already remained in jail for more six months i.e. from 06.01.2020 to 22.07.2020 which is duly reported by Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Bilaspur in its report dated 02.11.2022, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would meet if the sentence of one year awarded by the Court below is reduced to the period already undergone by him for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC. For the remaining sections viz. For the remaining sections viz. Section 279 of IPC and Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, the sentence awarded by the Court below is affirmed, which the applicant has already suffered and completed the term of sentence. Ordered accordingly. 16. Since the fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant, no further order is necessary in this regard. 17. Revision is thus allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. 18. A copy of the order along with the record of the Court below be sent to the concerned Court for necessary compliance.