ORDER : Mr. Birendra Kumar, J. - The petitioner faced trial in criminal case No. 11/1995 arising out of FIR No. 560/1994 registered with police station Udaipurwati, Jhunjhunufor offences under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of the IPC and was sentenced for nine months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 304- A of IPC and on default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 15 days was ordered. The petitioner was further convicted for offences under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC with rigorous imprisonment of three months respectively was awarded vide judgment dated 12.11.2002. The conviction was challenged in criminal appeal No. 23/2003 and vide judgment dated 16.01.2004 the appeal was dismissed. Both the judgments are under challenge herein. 2. Heard the parties and perused the records. 3. Consistent statement of the witnesses of incident is that, the petitioner was driving the vehicle, which caused accident from behind to a cycle rider, as a result whereof, the cycle rider died. The witnesses are specific that the petitioner was rash and negligent. Both the courts have recorded concurrent finding on rash and negligent act of the petitioner. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill v. The State of Chhattisgah reported in AIR 2022 SC 3283 observed as follows: "9. ...It is a settled legal proposition that if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by re-appreciating the evidence. 10. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice..." 5. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this court cannot examine the wisdom of the two courts of fact, who have concurrently recorded the finding, unless the finding is perverse one. 6. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this court cannot examine the wisdom of the two courts of fact, who have concurrently recorded the finding, unless the finding is perverse one. 6. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction, however, considering the fact that the matter is very old and the petitioner has already suffered trauma of long litigation, it is directed that the sentence awarded be reduced to the period already undergone. 7. With the aforesaid modification of sentence, the instant revision petition is accordingly disposed of.