J UDGMENT : Kaushik Goswami, J. Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This revision petition is directed against the Judgment & Order dated 21.02.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellate Court’) in Crl.A. No. 28/2010, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner (accused before the Trial Court) was dismissed and the Judgment & Order dated 27.08.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in G.R. Case No. 1020/2007, whereby the petitioner/accused was convicted under Sections 279/304A/337 of IPC . 3. The facts of the case is that the jurisdictional Police Officer lodged an FIR on 23.08.2007 stating inter alia that it was learnt that on that date at about 9:40 a.m. on the Gar Ali, in front of the Punjab Engineering, while one Arifa Khatoon was riding a bicycle carrying her younger sister Armina Khatoon and was proceeding towards D.C.B. School, a Truck bearing registration No. AMS 5938 at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner driven by the petitioner/accused hit them from behind as a result of which, Armina Khatoon fell down from the bicycle and the left side rear wheel of the Truck ran over her head killing her on the spot. 4. It is further alleged that Arifa Khatoon also sustained fracture injury on her right leg and the bicycle was totally damaged. It is further alleged that the petitioner/accused fled away from the place of occurrence by leaving the Truck. Accordingly, the FIR was registered under Sections 279/338/304A/427 of IPC and thereafter, Charge-sheet was filed under Sections 279/338/304A/427 of IPC . After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed Charge-sheet under Sections 279/337/304A/427 of IPC against the petitioner/accused. 5. Thereafter, the trial was conducted, wherein the prosecution examined as many as 8 (eight) witnesses, whereas the petitioner/accused did not examine any witness except his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein he has denied the prosecution case and has stated that the allegations leveled agaisnt him are false and baseless. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court was pleased to hold the petitioner/accused guilty under Sections 279/304A/337 of IPC . 6. After conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court was pleased to hold the petitioner/accused guilty under Sections 279/304A/337 of IPC . Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment & Order of the Trial Court, the petitioner/accused filed an appeal being Crl.A.No. 28/2010 before the Appellate Court, wherein the Appellate Court after analyzing and re-appreciating the evidences was pleased to dismiss the said appeal. Situated thus, the present criminal revision petition has been filed. 7. Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that there being no evidence as regards rash and negligent driving, the Judgment & Order of both the Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court are totally perverse. He further submits that in order to constitute an offence under Sections 279/304A, the proof of rashness or negligence is essential. In support of the aforesaid submissions, he relied upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kriti Singh Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2005 2 GLT 274. 8. Per contra, Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent submits that it has clearly come out from the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 & PW-7 and the exhibits especially Ext.4, which is the trace map that the petitioner/accused was driving the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner and therefore, there being evidence of rash and negligent, offence is clearly made out under Sections 279/304A of IPC . 9. He further submits that the concurrent findings of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on evidence, this Court ought not to disturb such findings. He further submits that there being no manifest or patent error on the face of the record, this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction ought not to interfere with the conviction rendered by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court. 10. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the contending parties and have perused the materials available on record including the decisions cited at the bar. 11. Apt to reproduce relevant paragraphs of the Judgment & Order passed by the Trial Court:- “30. Now, therefore, les us carefully scrutinise the evidence of the investigating officer. The exhibit-4 site plan shows that the truck hit the bicycle from behind on the left side of the road. 11. Apt to reproduce relevant paragraphs of the Judgment & Order passed by the Trial Court:- “30. Now, therefore, les us carefully scrutinise the evidence of the investigating officer. The exhibit-4 site plan shows that the truck hit the bicycle from behind on the left side of the road. The investigating officer has stated in the exhibit-4 site plan that there was no skid mark on the road. This proves that the truck hit the girls who were proceeding ahead of it on a bicycle on the left side of the road from behind and the driver did not even apply the brake or try to swerve the truck to the right side to avert the accident. In the exhibit-7 inspection report the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Jorhat, has statedthat at the time of inspection he found the truck bearing registration No. AMS-5938 mechanically in good condition. 31. In view of the above testimonies of the prosecution witnesses it must be held that the alleged accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. AMS-5938 by the accused Kalu Singh alias Kuldip Singh, which caused the death of Armina Khatoon and hurt to Arifa Khatoon which are offences u/s 279,304(A),337 I.P.C. and hence, the accused must be held guilty of committing the said offences. Therefore, the Point No.(I)is decided in the affirmative. 33. In the result, from the facts and circumstances of the case and from the above discussion I hold that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the charges under Sections 279,304 (A), 337 I.P.C. against accused Kalu Singh alias Kuldip Singh beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I hold him guilty of committing offences punishable u/s 279,304(A), 337 I.P.C. and convict him under the said Sections. But the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge u/s 427 I.R.Cagainstthe accused. Hence, I acquit him from the said charge.” 12. It appears that PW-1 victim has deposed that while she was carrying her sister in her bicycle by pushing the bicycle, the Truck in question driven by the petitioner/accused in a rash and negligent manner hit them from behind. She further deposed that her sister was thrown away and the rear wheel of the Truck ran over the head of her sister killing her instantly. She further deposed that her sister was thrown away and the rear wheel of the Truck ran over the head of her sister killing her instantly. She further deposed that the right leg was hit by the wheel of the Truck as a result of which her leg was fractured. She further deposed that she took treatment in the Hospital for one month. It appears that the testimony of PW-1 could not be shaken by the petitioner/accused during cross-examination. 13. It is evident from her evidence that the Truck in question having being droven in a negligent and rash manner, hit them from behind as a result of which, her sister was thrown away from the bicycle and the wheel of the Truck ran over her head and killed her instantly. 14. It further appears that PW-2, who was proceeding towards his home at the time of the incident deposed that he saw the Truck coming at a very high speed and while PW-1 was carrying another girl on the carrier of her bicycle and proceeding through the side of the road, the Truck in question hit the bicycle and throw away the girls, as a result of which the leg of a girl was fractured and the wheel of a Truck ran over the other girl by killing her instantly.He further deposed that the petitioner/accused by leaving the Truck at the place of occurrence fled away. 15. It appears that the aforesaid testimony of PW-2 also stood unshaken, whereas the testimony of PW-2 corroborates the testimony of PW-1 and proves the rash and negligent on the part of the petitioner/accused. 16. PW-3, who was present in his shop situated near the place of occurrence deposed that he saw the girls proceeding on the side of the road and being hit by the Truck in question for which one of the girl died on the spot and the other girl sustained injury on her leg. 17. It further appears that during cross-examination, he clarified that girls were proceeding on the left side of the road. He further clarified that he saw the petitioner/accused driving the Truck. It appears that the aforesaid testimony of PW-3 also stood unshaken by the petitioner/accused. 18. 17. It further appears that during cross-examination, he clarified that girls were proceeding on the left side of the road. He further clarified that he saw the petitioner/accused driving the Truck. It appears that the aforesaid testimony of PW-3 also stood unshaken by the petitioner/accused. 18. PW-4 similarly deposed that while he was proceeding towards Gar Ali, he saw the two girls proceeding on their side of the road and the Truck in question by hitting them from behind killed one of the girls on the spot. 19. It further appears that PW-7, who is the Investigating Officer of the case has fully corroborated the prosecution case. He deposed that the offending Truck was found in the place of occurrence in an abandoned condition and one girl was lying dead while another was lying injured. He further deposed that he prepared a site plan of the accident site, which he exhibited as Ext.4. Perusal of the said exhibit site plan (Ext. 4), it appears that there is no sign of skid mark of the wheels mentioned therein. 20. It further appears that the site plan (Ext. 4) prepared by the Investigatinig Officer and proved by him during deposition indicates that the girls who were proceeding ahead of the Truck in question on a bicycle on the left side of the road was hit by the Truck from behind and that the driver did not even apply the break or try to swerve the Truck to the right side to avert the accident as there was no skid mark noted by the Investigatinig Officer in the site plan. 21. It appears from the aforesaid evidence that the prosecution has been able to establish that the petitioner/accused was driving the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner for which the accident occurred in which one of the girl died after her head came under the wheel of the vehicle in question. 22. It appears that the Appellate Court after re-appreciating the aforesaid evidence dismissed the appeal assailing the Judgment & Order of the Trial Court.Relevant paragraph of the Appellate Court is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “10) In this case, the factum of accident is not denied. It is also an admitted fact that the accused was driving the truck and one of the victims died due to the accident and the other sustained injury. It is also an admitted fact that the accused was driving the truck and one of the victims died due to the accident and the other sustained injury. The defence case as it appears from cross-examination is that the driver/accused was not negligent and the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. From the trend of evidence and cross- examination it transpires that the victim were on left hand side of the road. The truck hit them from their behind. One of the victims was crushed by the wheel of the truck while another sustained injury. The accident was witnessed by PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. There is no evidence that the accused tried to avoid the accident by applying brake or by blowing horn. On the contrary, there is evidence that he was driving the truck in excessive speed. I, therefore, find that the trial Court committed no wrong convicting the accused- appellant U/SS 279/304 (A)/337 of I.P.Code. I find that the appeal is devoid of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The accused-appellant is directed to surrender before the trial Court within 15 (fifteen) days to serve out his sentence.” 23. The jurisdiction of the Revisional Court is limited.It is only when the Trial Court/Appellate Court has acted in ignorance of the law, or there is no evidence whatsoever, the Revisional Court may struck down the Judgment & Order passed by the Trial Court/Appellate Court. 24. In the instant case, it appears that both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court by fully appreciating the evidences on record based on evidence has held the petitioner/accused guilty of the offence under Sections 279/304A/337 of IPC . 25. As regards,the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kriti Singh (supra), relied by Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused is concerned, there is no quarrel to the proposition that in order to constitute an offence under Sections 279/304A of IPC , the prove of rashness or negligence is essential. However, a decision is contractual and has to be applied to the facts and circumstances of each case. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused is concerned, there is no quarrel to the proposition that in order to constitute an offence under Sections 279/304A of IPC , the prove of rashness or negligence is essential. However, a decision is contractual and has to be applied to the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case there being evidence of the petitioner/accused driving the truck at an excessive speed and in not applying the brake while approaching the PW-1(victim) and the deceased sister, provingrash and negligent driving thereof, the said decision is not applicable in the context of the present case.Pertinent that, criminality lies in not taking the precaution to prevent the happening of the consequences in the hope that they may not happen. 26. In the present case, the Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court after appreciating the evidence has held that the petitioner/accused was driving at an excessive speed and has not press the break so as to prevent the accident for which the head of one of the girl came under the left wheel of the Truck. That being so, I am of the unhesitant view that there is no legal infirmity in the Judgment & Order rendered by the Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court. Hence, the revision petition fails. 27. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed. 28. Send back the case records.