Judgment:
S.N. Pathak, J.
1. The revision is directed against the judgment rendered by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnia, in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1994 confirming the judgment of the trail Court dated 4-5-1994 passed by S.D.J.M., Araria, in G.R. Case No. 821/90, Trial No. 557 of 1994. The revisionist was convicted under Sections 279 and 304A, IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for four months for the offence under Section 279, IPC and two years for the offence under Section 304A, IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. It has been submitted by the revisionist's lawyer that PW 1, who was the rickshaw puller, said that he was unable to say the number of the bus which dashed against his rickshaw. PW 5, Yogendra Rishi, also failed to say whether he was knocked down by a bus or a truck. PW 1 said that he learnt the bus number from PW4, Binod Roy, who did not give the bus number in his evidence in Court. So, the identification of the revisionist is not fixed by the evidence of PW 1, PW4 and PW 5. In this view of the matter, the revisionist did not deserve to be convicted. However, on perusal of the evidence of PW2 it transpires that he was an eye-witness and he had said that Pawan Coach had dashed the rickshaw driven by PW 1 from behind, killing Dinesh Rishideo and injuring Yogendra Rishi. This witness also identified the accused in dock and the person who was driving the Pawan coach at the relevant date and time. The deceased and the injured were carried to the hospital by this witness alongwith others. The deceased died on the way, PW 3 was declared hostile. So, there we: at least one witness who said that the revisionist was driving the Pawan coach which had knocked down the deceased Dinesh Rishideo. Although PW 1 failed to give the number of the bus, he at least said that it was Pawan coach which dashed against his rickshaw and he also identified the accused in dock while deposing in Court. In his cross-examination under Section 313, Cr. P.C. the accused-revisionist did not offer any explanation as to. why he was picked up by the police just on imagination to be implicated in the relevant accident case. On investigation he was the person charge-sheeted. So.the circumstances of the case indicated that on the relevant date and time, he was the driver of the Pawan coach which dashed against the rickshaw of PW 1 killing Dinesh Rishideo and injuring PW 5 Yogendra Rishi,the informant. The doctor was also examined as PW6, who said that the deceased died of an injury in an accident. PW 7 was the Investigating Officer of the case who also supported the fact of accident at the particular place and time. Both the lower Courts on the basis of evidence held the accused-revisionist guilty and convicted and sentenced him, as stated above. The judgment of the two lower Courts do not suffer from any irregularity in arriving at the conclusion the revisionist had caused the alleged accident. I do not see any misapplication of any procedural law or any other law in the findings recorded by the two lower Courts. The scope of revision is limited and this Court cannot interfere unless the judgment of the Courts below is vitiated by any legal flaw. Hence, I do not think that there is any good ground for interfering with the judgment of the two Courts below.
3. So far as the sentence is concerned, it has been submitted that the revisionist already suffered incarceration of 5-1/2 months. So, a lenient view may be taken.
4. Section 304-A, IPC has provided for maximum sentence of three years. Maximum sentence imposed upon the revisionist was to years. I do not think that this sentence was stringent under the circumstances of this case. Road accident and negligent driving have become rampant incidents now a days and hence, no lenient view can be taken. The period undergone by the revisionist is bound to be set off against the period of sentence under Section 428, Cr. P.C.
5. In the result, this revision is dismissed.