JUDGMENT : 1. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment/order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Sub Judge) Ramnagar [‘Trial Court”], in case No.121/2013 titled ‘State of J&K v. Vijay Kumar’, whereby the petitioner was convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 279 RPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2000/- and simple imprisonment of two months and fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively, as upheld by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur [“Appellate Court”] vide judgment dated 25.07.2017, whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner/convict against his conviction and sentence was dismissed, the petitioner/convict has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, seeking setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court as upheld by the Appellate Court. 2. The facts leading to the filing of present revision petition in nutshell are as under: 2.1 That the appellant was charged and tried for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A RPC; the Trial Court after appreciating the evidence that had been adduced before it by the prosecution as well as defence, by judgment dated 03.11.202016, convicted the appellant under the aforesaid offences and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2000/- for commission of offence under Section 304-A RPC and simple imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs.1000/- for commission of offence under Section 279 RPC. 2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court, the appellant preferred Criminal Appal before the Appellate Court. The appellate Court, vide judgment dated 25.07.2017, dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and upheld the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, against petitioner/accused/convict. 3. Before proceeding further to appreciate the grounds of challenge urged by the appellant, to assail the impugned judgment, it would be appropriate to notice factual backdrop of the case. 3.1 As per the prosecution story, on 18.12.2013, police of Police Station, Ramnagar received information, through reliable source, that a bus bearing registration No.JK02G-4055 being driven by one Vijay Kumar, in a very rash, negligent and careless manner, while being plied from Basantgarh towards Ramnagar, met an accident at Gundia when the driver lost control over the bus, which hit a pedestrian, who died on spot. On this information, FIR No.154/2013 came to be registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A RPC and investigation was set in motion. 3.2 After completion of investigation, chargesheet for the commission of offences punishable under Section 279/304-A was presented. Charges were framed against the petitioner, vide order dated 15.01.2014 who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution was directed to lead its evidence. Out of 11 cited witnesses, the prosecution examined 09 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, petitioner was examined in terms of Section 342 CrPC, in which he again denied the allegations and stated that a false and frivolous case has been foisted against him and he examined one witness in his defence. 4. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for both the parties, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded to prove commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A RPC, against the petitioner and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him. 5. Feeling aggrieved of the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, the petitioner filed Appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court too, finding no merit in the appeal, dismissed the Appeal. This is how, the matter is before this Court through the medium of present criminal revision petition. 6. The judgments of both the Courts below have been challenged and assailed on the following grounds:- (i) Both the courts below have erred in law in omitting to consider the admitted facts and evidence with regard to identification of the petitioner; (ii) Judgments of both the courts below resulted in failure of justice; (iii) Trial Court has not considered the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner to the benefit of probation of offenders Act, 1966; (iv) The prosecution story has been proved false, in that, investigation officer has not supported the version of the alleged eye-witness; (v) The trial Court has mis-appreciated the evidence led in the case; and (vi) Observation of the trial court regarding non-production of evidence by the petitioner to disprove his presence in offending vehicle is perverse in law. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioner for the offences referred above. There are material contradictions and omissions between the statements of prosecution witnesses and such aspect has not been considered by the trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioner for the offences referred above. There are material contradictions and omissions between the statements of prosecution witnesses and such aspect has not been considered by the trial Court. No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. Further, the appellate Court failed to grant the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Thus, the trial Court erred in convicting the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of petition. He argued that the petitioner convict has been convicted by the trial court, and the conviction had been upheld by the appellate court, therefore, while hearing this Revision Petition, this court has limited scope to appreciate the questions raised, while assailing concurrent findings of the impugned judgment. It was prayed, finally, on behalf of the respondent that there is no merit in the petition and prayed for its dismissal, upholding the impugned judgment. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. It is settled legal position of law that scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction is very limited. The object of the provision of revision, is to set right a patent defect, or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders which upon the face of them bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. Revisional Jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. 11. The petitioner had been convicted for the commission of offences punishable under sections 304-A and 279 RPC and sentenced by the Trial Court and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed by the appellate court in an appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction. Therefore, there are concurrent findings recorded both by the trial court as well as appellate court. Therefore, there are concurrent findings recorded both by the trial court as well as appellate court. The petitioner had been tried for the aforesaid offences with the accusation that while driving a bus he had hit a child namely Sapna Devi who was walking on the road along PW-Aju Kumar, her brother, who was at the place of occurrence leading her death on spot. 12. PW Aju Kumar had been cited as an eye witness who had stated that while he along with victim Sapna Devi were walking on the side of the road towards Ram Nagar to proceed to a Sweets Shop, the offending vehicle driven by the petitioner negligently and rashly from Basantgarh towards Ram Nagar hit the deceased from behind at the extreme side of the road, where they were walking and the deceased Sapna Devi was crushed under the front tyre of the vehicle and that he too had a providential escape as he had fell down in an adjacent drain. PW-7, Subash Chander, stated to be travelling by offending vehicle, has also been cited as an eye witness had also supported the prosecution story though the prosecution had not cited many witnesses despite their availability as passengers in the vehicle, however, the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution have stated with regard to the negligence of the petitioner while driving the vehicle and causing an accident wherein a precious life of deceased Sapna Devi was lost. 13. PW Famy who is father of the deceased also stated that their house was situated at a distance of 300 meters away from the place of occurrence on roadside and he was the first person to reach on spot; that the driver of the offending vehicle had fled away on his reaching there. PWs Dharam Chand and Faquiru have proved the seizure with regard to the vehicle whereas PW Dr. Rajesh Gupta had proved the autopsy report and who was not even cross examined by the defence. The death of the deceased Sapna Devi in the road traffic accident was not disputed and it was firmly established by the oral as well as medical evidence available on record. Rajesh Gupta had proved the autopsy report and who was not even cross examined by the defence. The death of the deceased Sapna Devi in the road traffic accident was not disputed and it was firmly established by the oral as well as medical evidence available on record. It has not been a case of defense that the accident had taken place because of any mechanical failure of the machinery of the vehicle as has been proved vide mechanical inspection report (Ext.P-6) by the Mechanic that the machinery, steering and brake system of the vehicle were in a perfect working condition. 14. Both the courts have rightly rejected the contention of the defense that there was no test identification parade of the accused especially so when the petitioner as an accused was identified by the witnesses in the court. 15. Insofar as argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the investigation in the case was defective, as such, the petitioner cannot be convicted on the basis of defective investigation is concerned, in a case of defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. If the prosecution case is established by the evidence adduced, any failure or omission on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot render the case of the prosecution doubtful as has been held by the Apex Court in a case titled Amar Singh vs. Balwinder Singh & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 1164 . 16. The defective investigation, as highlighted on certain points by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my considered opinion, cannot be a ground to throw away the prosecution case, if there is other reliable evidence available on record. I am fortified to hold this, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in a case titled Dhanaj Singh v. State of Punjab reported as (2004) 3 SCC 654 , wherein it has been held that in the case of defective investigation, the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect, to do so would amount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective. The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in Karnal Singh v. State of M.P. reported as (1995) 5 SCC 518 , Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar reported as (1999) 2 SCC 126 , Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, reported as (1998) 4 SCC 517 and Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh, reported as (2003) 2 SCC 518 . 17. Though the prosecution had not listed a large number of witnesses being available as passengers of the vehicle which has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, neither the legislature in view of section 134 of the Evidence Act nor there is any judicial precedent to take a view that there must be a particular number of witnesses to record an order of conviction against the accused as the legal system in this country has always laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth is cogent, credible, trustworthy and reliable. 18. On the basis of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, it has been proved sufficiently that it was the petitioner, who on the day of occurrence, while driving the offending vehicle, at the relevant time, from Basantgarh towards Ram Nagar, rashly and negligently, hit the deceased and crushed her to death on spot under the front wheel of his vehicle in most tragic circumstances, therefore, the trial court had rightly decided the case by holding that the convict was found to have committed rash and negligent driving, as a result of which, the deceased girl lost her life. 19. In view of concurrent judgments with regard to culpability of the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under sections 304-A and 279 RPC, this court is of the considered opinion that no interference is required in the impugned judgments which have been passed perfectly in consonance with law, appreciating the prosecution evidence in its right perspective. This court does not find any such ground, on the basis of the prosecution evidence to take a different view than the view taken by the trial court and accepted by the appellate court. 20. This court does not find any such ground, on the basis of the prosecution evidence to take a different view than the view taken by the trial court and accepted by the appellate court. 20. For the foregoing reasons and observations made hereinabove, this petition is found devoid any merit and substance and is dismissed. Judgments of the trial court and appellate court are upheld. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while concluding his arguments had submitted that in case this court does not accept the petition of the petitioner to set aside his conviction recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court, the plea of the petitioner with regard to his probation as a first offender be considered. He has submitted that the petitioner had neither committed nor has been convicted, of any offence, prior to this conviction and being a young man of 35 years and driver by profession having a family to be supported by him and facing the trial for such a long period, he be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act as a first offender. 22. Since this Court while dealing with the Criminal Revision Petition does not have any evidence with regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was first offender and was entitled to be benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, as this plea seems not to have been raised or dealt with either by the Trial Court or by the Appellate Court. In the considered opinion of this court in view of concurrent findings of both the courts below and not raising such pleas before courts below, it will not be in the interest of justice to consider the grant of probation at this stage in terms of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act or under Section 562 of the J&K CrPC and this plea is also turned down. 23. The Criminal Revision petition as a result of the aforestated reasons is dismissed as above by upholding the judgments passed by the courts below.