JUDGMENT : ARUN KUMAR RAI, J. Heard Ms. Ashwini Priya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Praful Jojo, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The instant Criminal Revision is against the judgment dated 19.06.2015 passed by Sri Sandeep Sharma learned Additional Sessions Judge Court IV at Jameshdpur in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2011 whereby the Criminal Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order and judgment dated 13.01.2011 passed by Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Jamshedpur in Bistupur P.S. Case No. 101 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 721 of 2006 by which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs. 500/- for committing an offence under Section 279, 337, of I.P.C. was affirmed and appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed 3. In nutshell, the case of prosecution is based upon the fardbeyan of the informant which has been recorded on 21.03.2006 wherein, informant has allegedly stated that at about 7.30 A.M., the informant was returning home after morning walk from Jubli Park and when he reached near get No. 2 of children park, the driver of Hero Honda Motorcycle driving rashly and negligently from opposite side dashed him. Due to this, he fell down and received injury on knee joint, waist and was not in position to stand up. The nearby people brought him to the T.M.H. Hospital for treatment. The number of Motorcycle is JH05F6436. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, Bistupur P.S. Case No. 101 of 2006 dated 23.03.2006 was registered under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. After investigation, charge sheet dated 30.06.2006 submitted against the accused (petitioner herein) under Section 279/ 337 of I.P.C. 5. In this case, the learned C.J.M. after taking cognizance of the offence transferred the case to the Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur for trial and disposal. The substance of accusation was explained to him on 16.04.2007 in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses including the informant. These witnesses are P.W.-1 Anjani Kumar Dubey is (informant), P.W.-2 Sunil Pati Tripathy, P.W.-3 Lala Srivastava, P.W.-4 Srikant Dubey and P.W.-5 Om Prasad Gupta. 7. 6. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses including the informant. These witnesses are P.W.-1 Anjani Kumar Dubey is (informant), P.W.-2 Sunil Pati Tripathy, P.W.-3 Lala Srivastava, P.W.-4 Srikant Dubey and P.W.-5 Om Prasad Gupta. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ revisionist submitted that identification of accused/petitioner in the court is itself doubtful as informant has stated in his testimony that after seeing the accused at the time of accident, he is seeing accused in the court. Learned counsel further submitted that if a person sees other person for fraction of second then it is difficult for him to identify the said person after elapse of more than a year. It has also been pointed out that except informant no one is the eye witness. 8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submitted that prosecution story fully supported by all the five prosecution witnesses. There is consistency in the evidence of witnesses and the informant has clearly stated in his evidence, the number of vehicles and he has also identified the accused in the Court during the trial. 9. Heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials available on record. 10. For determination of this revision petition, statements of witnesses who were examined by the prosecution are being reproduced herein below: 11. P.W.-1 is the informant who stated that on 21.03.2006 at about 7.30 A.M. while he was returning after morning walk from Jubli Park at gate No.2 near children park, a Hero Honda Motorcycle driven in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and dashed him due to which he fell down and bone of waist got fractured, again said that left kulha was broken. He was admitted in the T.M.H. Hospital by nearby people, where he got treatment for 6 months and presently he is getting treatment from Dr. R.N. Singh of Patna. After accident, he was unable walk, Police recorded his fardbeyan in T.M.H. Hospital and he put his signature on the same after reading it. His signature has been marked as Exhibit-1. This witness identified the accused present before the Court and stated that he is the person who was driving the motorcycle and dashed him. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he had seen the accused at the time of occurrence/accident and thereafter, he is seeing him in the Court today. His signature has been marked as Exhibit-1. This witness identified the accused present before the Court and stated that he is the person who was driving the motorcycle and dashed him. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he had seen the accused at the time of occurrence/accident and thereafter, he is seeing him in the Court today. The motorcycle dashed him in the left side of kulha due to which he fell down in the left side. In para 13, he has stated that he can file the paper regarding the treatment in T.M.H. for six months. He has denied that at the time of occurrence, he was returning from Bajaj Super Scooter and a small girl was sitting on the scooter and the bone of neck of the girl was broken. 12. P.W.-2 Sunil Pati Tripathy has stated that on 21.03.2006 at about 7.00-8.00 A.M., he heard the noise of weeping in the house of Anjani Dubey, he reached there and came to know that Anjani Dubey had met with an accident near Jubli Park. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that the occurrence did not took place in his presence. 13. P.W.-3 Lala Srivastava has stated that on 21.03.2006 at about 7.00-7.30 A.M., he was coming to Sakchi through bicycle for taking vegetable. When he entered inside the first gate of Jubli Park, he saw that one person was lying on the road in injured condition and 50- 60 persons were gathered there. He came to know that a Hero Honda Splendor had dashed that person and fled away. He did not see the person who was driving the motorcycle. 14. P.W. -4 Shrikant Dubey has stated that occurrence took place on 21.03.2006 at about 7.30 A.M. At that time, he was at home and Anjani Kumar Dubey told him on telephone that he met with an accident at Jubli Park. He went to T.M.H. Hospital and saw that injured was admitted in emergency ward. In T.M.H. Hospital, injured told the witness that driver of Hero Honda Motorcycle dashed him near Children Park gate No. 2 Jubli Park. He also told that Motorcycle No. JH05-F-6436 of Kali K. Patro dashed him. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not see the occurrence and also to the accused. 15. P.W.-5 Dr. In T.M.H. Hospital, injured told the witness that driver of Hero Honda Motorcycle dashed him near Children Park gate No. 2 Jubli Park. He also told that Motorcycle No. JH05-F-6436 of Kali K. Patro dashed him. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not see the occurrence and also to the accused. 15. P.W.-5 Dr. Om Prakash Gupta has stated that on 21.03.2006, he was posted in T.M.H. Hospital emergency department as Senior Registrar of Surgery Department. On that date, about 8.25 A.M., he examined the injured Mr. Anjani Kumar Dubey. It was stated by patient that he met with an accident. During course of examination, he found the following injuries on his person. a. Contusion left shoulder. b. Contusion left thigh. After x-ray, the x-ray plate showed fracture of Acetabulum left side, the second x-ray plate of thigh also showed fracture neck of femur of left thigh. He has opined that both the injuries were grievous in nature caused by hard traffic accident due to hard blunt object. The injury report which is in his writing in signature, the same has been marked as Exhibit-2. 16. From the perusal of testimony of witnesses especially P.W.-1 who happens to be informant, prosecution has able to establish that informant met with an accident on 21.03.2006 at 7:30 A.M. while he was returning after morning walk from Jubli Park on account of rash and negligent driving of Hero Honda motorcycle having registration no. JH05-F-6436 driven by accused. Informant has identified the accused in the court as the person who was driving the said motorcycle. 17. As far as other witnesses are concerned, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 are not eye witnesses to the incident, however, P.W.-2 visited to the house of informant and came across the fact of accident of informant whereas P.W.-3 saw the informant lying on the road in injured condition and he came to know that one Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle dashed him. Further P.W.-4 has visited to T.M.H. Hospital as he was telephonically intimated by Anjani Kumar Dubey (informant) that he met with an accident and when he visited T.M.H. Hospital he found informant in injured condition and was admitted in hospital who told this witness that motorcycle no. JH05-F-6436 Kali K. Patro dashed him. 18. As far as injuries are concerned Doctor has opined injury as grievous one. JH05-F-6436 Kali K. Patro dashed him. 18. As far as injuries are concerned Doctor has opined injury as grievous one. In cross-examination, he has admitted that such type of injuries may caused by fall from a considerable height. 19. In view of above stated fact, this Court is of considered view that prosecution has able to establish charge under Section 279 and 337 I.P.C. against the petitioner, as such no interference is required in judgment and order dated 19.06.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jamshedpur passed in Criminal Appeal no. 16 of 2011 whereby order and judgment dated 13.01.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Jamshedpur in Bistupur P.S. Case No. 101 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 721 of 2006 by which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs. 500/- for committing an offence under Section 279, 337, of I.P.C. was affirmed. 20. As far as sentence is concerned it transpires that petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs. 500 each for committing an offence under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. each. Custody report reveals that petitioner has already remained in custody for fourteen days. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner is about 40 years of age in the year 2006, as such, at present he is about 59 years of age and an ailing person. 21. Considering the fact that petitioner has faced rigours of trial for about seventeen years and at present his age is about 59 years and also petitioner has already remained in custody for fourteen days out of maximum sentence of simple imprisonment for four months each U/s 279 of I.P.C. and 337 of I.P.C. imposed by learned trial court. Therefore 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. But as far as fine of Rs. 500/- each for Section 279 of I.P.C. and 337 I.P.C. which have been imposed by Learned Magistrate, it shall remain intact and if it has not been deposited by appellant then he shall deposit the same within four months & for each default appellant is directed to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. 22. But as far as fine of Rs. 500/- each for Section 279 of I.P.C. and 337 I.P.C. which have been imposed by Learned Magistrate, it shall remain intact and if it has not been deposited by appellant then he shall deposit the same within four months & for each default appellant is directed to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. 22. Consequently, the instant Criminal Revision is partly allowed subject to above said modification. 23. Let the trial court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.