JUDGMENT : K.C. Agrawal, J.—This is a revision by the accused who has been convicted u/s 304A of the Indian Penal Code by the two courts below and has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. 2. According to the case of the prosecution on 15th March, 1970 the accused-applicant was driving bus No. 2567 R. J. L. when he dashed against the rickshaw of one Badru arid crushed him under the wheels of the bus. In pursuance of the charge-sheet issued to the applicant he appeared before the Court and made a statement u/s 257A of the Code of Criminal Procedure denying that Badru died in any accident under the wheels of his bus. He although denied that there was a collision of his bus with the rickshaw of Badru but admitted that he was driving the aforesaid bus on March 15, 1970. It was, thereafter that a charge u/s 304A Indian Penal Code was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty. 3. The prosecution produced 10 witnesses who deposed about the accident were Nawab (P.W. 1), Aziz (P.W. 2), P.W. 4 (Achchey Lal and Ibrahim (P.W. 5). Achchey Lal (P.W. 4) and Ibrahim (P.W. 5) were the occupants of the rickshaw which was being pulled by Nawab (P.W. 1). Nawab (P.W. 1) and Achchey Lal (P.W. 4) were the two rickshaw pullers who were coming behind deceased Badru on the aforesaid date and they saw the accident. All these witnesses stated that the bus came from the side of Kosi and the rikshaw of Badru was coming from the, side of Barhana at the time when the bus which was being negligently and carelessly driven by the accused applicant collided with the rikshaw of Badru. When Badru was attempting to run away towards the kachchi patri to save his life he came under the wheels of the bust and was crushed. The statements of these, witnesses were belayed by the Magistrate and be found that it was proved beyond doubt that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the applicant on the aforesaid date. On the finding the applicant was convicted u/s 304A and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The statements of these, witnesses were belayed by the Magistrate and be found that it was proved beyond doubt that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the applicant on the aforesaid date. On the finding the applicant was convicted u/s 304A and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge substantially agreed with the finding given by the Magistrate and found that the applicant was extremely careless in turning his bus towards his right hand without caring for the traffic on the opposite side. On this finding the judgment of the Magistrate was affirmed in appeal and the conviction was maintained. Against these judgments of the courts below the present revision has been filed. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant urged that in order to hold a person guilty of the offence u/s 304A, it is necessary to establish that the death is directly due to such driving and that the rash or negligent act of which the accused is held to be guilty is the direct or proximate cause of the death. On this basis the learned Counsel contended that as a matter of fact what really happened was that after the bus collided with the rickshaw of Badru he attempted to save himself and that the accused applicant also applied his brakes for stopping the bus but the brakes failed as a result of which and on account of his own fault Badru came under the wheels of the bus. It was also contended in this connection that, in fact, the bus was not being driven at a speed or in a manner which could be considered as negligent act on the part of the accused applicant. The death, of Badru, according to the submission of the learned Counsel, was purely an accident and, therefore, the applicant could not be convicted of the offence u/s 304A of the Indian Penal Code. In this connection the learned Counsel also invited my attention to the statement of the accused-applicant made u/s 345, Cr. P. C. and also to the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge where he found that the applicant having taken the bus for driving on the aforesaid date with the defective brakes was responsible for the accident. In this connection the learned Counsel also invited my attention to the statement of the accused-applicant made u/s 345, Cr. P. C. and also to the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge where he found that the applicant having taken the bus for driving on the aforesaid date with the defective brakes was responsible for the accident. Criticising the judgment of the lower appellate court the learned Counsel contended that the brakes, in fact, were not defective when the bus was taken out by the applicant from the workshop but were broken because of the fact that the accused applied the same with force to save the deceased Badru. 5. I have carefully considered the argument of the Earned, counsel but failed to find any substance in the same. It is worthy of being noted that at the stage of statement u/s 251A of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant made a total denial of Bardu's accident with him on the aforesaid date. It was only subsequently that he came forward with the story of the brakes being used by him and the same having broken all of a sudden.... This story, which was given by him in the statement u/s 342, Cr. P. C. was rightly not believed by the Magistrate as well as by the learned Sessions Judge. It was found by them that the accident was, in fact, the result of gross and negligent driving of the bus by the' applicant and that it was not true that the brake failed when the same was applied by the applicant on the aforesaid date. In my opinion; in the instant case it is indeed difficult to imagine as to how the accused applicant could have possibly failed to notice the deceased coming on the rickshaw from the opposite direction in the broad day light if he was reasonably alert arid careful. Had he been careful and not grossly negligent he could have seen the rickshaw coming from the opposite direction and would have also applied the brakes for bringing the bus to a halt. Had he been careful and not grossly negligent he could have seen the rickshaw coming from the opposite direction and would have also applied the brakes for bringing the bus to a halt. In this view of the matter it appears to me that the findings of the two courts below that the accident was the result of the gross and negligent driving of the bus by the applicant and that the same was the direct and proximate cause of the death of Badru is correct and cannot be interfered with. It may further be noted in this connection that as laid down by the Supreme Court in Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration, , the question whether the accused was guilty of negligence in driving the bus and death of the deceased was caused due to negligent driving is a question of fact which depends for its determination on appreciation of the evidence. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the two courts below on the aforesaid question being a finding, of fact cannot be set aside in the present revision Where the jurisdiction of the High Court is confined only to the consideration of the errors of law alone. It is indisputable position that the High Court 'does not Have the right to re-appreciate the evidence in revision and to record its finding thereof. Accordingly, the submission of the learned Counsel that the death of Badru was not the direct or proximate result of the negligent driving of the bus by the accused applicant on the aforesaid date does ; not appeal to me. 6. Another, feature of this case, which is worthy of being mentioned here is that in the appeal filed before the learned Sessions Judge, the applicant filed an application admitting his guilt and making a prayer for reduction of the sentence. The application has not only, been signed by the counsel appearing for the accused-applicant but also by the accused as well. While dismissing the appeal fifed by the applicant, the learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the aforesaid application as Well and has found that as the guilt has been admitted by the accused applicant, there did not remain much to be done in the appeal, The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge appears to be correct. While dismissing the appeal fifed by the applicant, the learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the aforesaid application as Well and has found that as the guilt has been admitted by the accused applicant, there did not remain much to be done in the appeal, The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge appears to be correct. It was, however, tried to be explained though half heartedly by the learned Counsel for the applicant by urging before me that such applications are not generally the voluntary act of the accused and are made only with a limited purpose that the sentence awarded be reduced. Be that as it may, the explanation which was sought to be offered by giving this application before the court below was not even advanced in that court The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge indicate that the applicant admitted it in clear terms that he had committed the offence and was guilty. As the applicant admitted his guilt in the lower appellate court, it appears to me that it-would not be in the interest of justice that he be permitted to. resile from, the same in this revision. It, however, appears to me that in the present case the sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate errs on the side of severity and that the interest of justice would be served by reducing the same to six months rigorous imprisonment. 7. Accordingly while maintaining the conviction of the applicant u/s 304A, I. P. C. I reduce the sentence of one year awarded by Magistrate to a period of six months. The applicant is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds failing which he shall be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out that sentence as modified by this Court. His bail bonds are cancelled.