JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 25.06.2015 passed by Sri Mukesh Kumar Srivastava learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I at Gumla in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2012 whereby the Criminal Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order and judgment dated 15.03.2012 passed by, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Gumla in connection with Raidih P.S. Case No. 78 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 998 of 2008 by which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code, was affirmed and appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. In nutshell, the case of prosecution is based upon the written report filed by Ganpat Kumar (informant) before the Officer-in-charge of Raidih police station on 26.11.2008 at 9:00 A.M. stating therein that on 26.11.2008 at 5:49 A.M. the informant and the deceased Teresa Ekka aged about 57 years were standing near Manjhatoli bus stand and waiting for a bus. It is further allegedly stated that a truck bearing registration no. JH02J-6349 hit the Teresa Ekka and tried to flee away but with the help of other vehicle the said truck was intercepted and caught near the police station. The injured Teresa Ekka was sent to Sadar Hospital for treatment. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report an F.I.R. No. 78 of 2008 dated 26.11.2008 was registered against driver of the said truck at Raidih police station under Section 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code. 5. It transpires from record that injured Teresa Ekka had been referred to R.I.M.S., Ranchi by Sadar Hospital, Gumla for better treatment and she succumbed to injury at R.I.M.S., Ranchi on 04.12.2008 at 10:30 P.M. 6. After completing the investigation the I.O. has submitted charge sheet under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code against the accused. On the basis of the same, the learned C.J.M., Gumla on 02.02.2009 after taking cognizance of the offence transferred the case to the S.D.J.M., Gumla for trial and disposal. After completing the investigation the I.O. has submitted charge sheet under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code against the accused. On the basis of the same, the learned C.J.M., Gumla on 02.02.2009 after taking cognizance of the offence transferred the case to the S.D.J.M., Gumla for trial and disposal. The substance of accusation was explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The statement of accused got recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein, he has simply denied the allegations levelled against him. 7. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as three witnesses among nine charge sheeted witnesses. P.W.-1 Ranjit Toppo (hearsay witness), P.W.-2 Anjalus Toppo (eye witness who has proved the death inquest report as Exhibit-1 and his fardbeyan as Exhibit -2) and P.W.-3 Ganpat Kumar (informant) himself who has proved the written report as Exhibit- 3. 8. The defence has not produced any witness nor any documentary evidence has been produced in his support. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that out of nine charge-sheeted witnesses only three interested witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and I.O. and doctor who has conducted the post mortem of the deceased have not been examined, as such, the cause of death has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further it has been submitted that post mortem report has not been exhibited in this case and only on the basis of statement of interested witnesses the petitioner has been convicted in this case. It has been further submitted that the incident took place on 25.11.2008 and the deceased was died on 04.12.2008 i.e. about ten days after the date of accident, therefore, it could be possible that deceased was died due to lack of proper care and treatment rather than the accident. 10. Per contra learned A.P.P. has submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Further it has been submitted that though deceased was died after ten days of the date of the accident but the fact of accident is not disputed in this case. Therefore, it is submitted that impugned judgment bears no infirmity and this petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. Therefore, it is submitted that impugned judgment bears no infirmity and this petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. For determination of this revision petition, statements of three witnesses who were examined by the prosecution are being reproduced herein below: 13. P.W.-1 Ranjit Toppo who is hearsay witness has stated that incident is of 26.11.2008 at about 5:45 A.M. At that time he was in his house and heard hulla from his adjacent house, therefore he came out and saw Teresa Ekka in injured condition and she was fallen on the ground. She was dashed by a truck bearing registration no. JH02-J-6349 which was running at very high speed. The deceased sustained injury in her head and she was brought to Sadar Hospital, from where she referred to Ranchi where she died during treatment. In his cross- examination, he has stated that he had not seen the occurrence from his own eyes. 14. P.W.-2 Anjalus Toppo has stated that incident is of 26.11.2008 at 5:30 A.M., on that day he was at Manjhatoli bus stand along with Ganpat Sahu and his wife Teresa Ekka, his Bhagni Anupa Ekka. While they were waiting for a bus to go to Ranchi, a truck coming from Jashpur side dashed his wife. The number of truck was JH02-J-6349. Truck was being driven very rashly and negligently which dashed his wife due to which she sustained injury on her head. He admitted his wife in Sadar Hospital, Gumla and from there she was referred to R.I.M.S. where she died after nine days on 04.12.2008. He identified and proved his signature on the carbon copy of inquest report which is marked as Exhibit- 1. Police recorded his statement at R.I.M.S. which he identified and proved his signature which is marked as Exhibit- 2. In his cross-examination he has stated that he boarded on the bus for Ranchi and on hearing hulla he got down from the bus and saw the dashing from the vehicle. He and Sukra Lakra put their signature on the death inquest report on the instruction of Darogaji. 15. In his cross-examination he has stated that he boarded on the bus for Ranchi and on hearing hulla he got down from the bus and saw the dashing from the vehicle. He and Sukra Lakra put their signature on the death inquest report on the instruction of Darogaji. 15. P.W.-3 Ganpat Kumar is the informant and eye witness in the present case and has stated that the incident is of 26.11.2008 at about 6:00 A.M. Teresa Ekka stayed at his home and was waiting for a bus of Ranchi to take her bhatiji to Ranchi. At that time her bhatiji and her husband were also with her. At the same time a truck bearing registration no. JH02-J-6349 driven by its driver very rashly and negligently dashed Teresa Ekka due to which she got unconscious. He chased that truck from Sandhya bus and brought the injured to Sadar Hospital from where she was referred to R.I.M.S. Truck was stopped at police station and driver started fleeing away to whom he saw in the light. He informed to the police station and also gave an application on which he put his signature which is identified and marked as Exhibit – 3. After a week, he came to know that she has died. In his cross-examination he has stated that they were chasing the vehicle by motorcycle. He fled away from the vehicle from police station at the distance of 20 meters. He further stated that it is not true that he did not identify the driver. He has identified the driver in the court. 16. From testimonies of above stated witnesses it is clear that P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 were at the spot where accident took place. P.W.-3 is the informant and deceased Teresa Ekka stayed at his home and she was going to Ranchi along with her husband Anjalus Toppo and bhatiji at 6:00 A.M. in the morning on 26.11.2008 they were at Manjhatoli then one truck having registration no. P.W.-3 is the informant and deceased Teresa Ekka stayed at his home and she was going to Ranchi along with her husband Anjalus Toppo and bhatiji at 6:00 A.M. in the morning on 26.11.2008 they were at Manjhatoli then one truck having registration no. JH02J- 6349 driving in a rash and negligent manner dashed Teresa Ekka who received injury and she was removed to Sadar hospital, Gumla from where she was referred to R.I.M.S., Ranchi for better treatment and during course of treatment she succumbed to injury on 04.12.2008 at 10:30 P.M. P.W.-2 who was at the time of death of Teresa Ekka, police of Bariatu police station has recorded his fardbeyan and has identified his signature in the fardbeyan. Even P.W.-3 has identified the petitioner in the court. 17. Factum of accident has also been corroborated from mouth of P.W.-1 who is of course hearsay witness but has not seen the accident but found Teresa Ekka in injured condition. No material has been brought either during cross-examination of any of the witnesses or in the statement of petitioner recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which could make the case of prosecution improbable. There is no categorical suggestion given to any of the witnesses on behalf of defence that petitioner was not driving the offending vehicle on 26.11.2008 at about 5:30 A.M. Of course in the present case I.O. and Doctor has not been examined, but non-examination of either I.O. or Doctor has not caused any prejudice to petitioner and even during course of argument, it has not been pointed out on behalf of petitioner. 18. In view of above stated fact, this Court is of considered view that prosecution has able to establish charge under Section 304A and 279 I.P.C. against the petitioner, as such no interference is required in judgment and order dated 25.06.2015 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-1st Class, Gumla passed in Criminal Appeal no. 18. In view of above stated fact, this Court is of considered view that prosecution has able to establish charge under Section 304A and 279 I.P.C. against the petitioner, as such no interference is required in judgment and order dated 25.06.2015 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-1st Class, Gumla passed in Criminal Appeal no. 22 of 2012 whereby order and judgment dated 15.03.2012 passed by, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Gumla in connection with Raidih P.S. Case No. 78 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 998 of 2008 by which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code, was affirmed. 19. As far as sentence is concerned it transpires that petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Section 279 of IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 304 A of IPC. Custody report reveals that petitioner has already remained in custody for one month and two days. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated at bar that petitioner is 60 years of age in the year 2012, as such, at present he is about 73 years of age and an ailing person. Apart from that he has to take care of his wife. 20. Considering the fact that petitioner has faced rigours of trial for more than seventeen years and at present his age is about 73 years and petitioner has already remained in custody for one month and two days out of maximum sentence of simple imprisonment for one year imposed by learned trial court. This Court is of considered view that end of justice would be met if sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 21. Consequently, the instant Criminal Revision is partly allowed subject to above said modification. 22. Let the trial court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.