JUDGMENT : K.C. Agrawal, J.—The applicant was charge-sheeted for: the offence under Sections 304A and 279, Indian Penal Code on the allegations that on 11-7-1971 at bout 9.45 a.m. on Bareiily-Shahjahanpur load near a could storage the applicant as driving truck No. U.S.Q. 9276 in a tanner so rash and negligent as to end-iger human life and likely to cause hurt any person and thereby committed an fence punishable u/s 279, of the Indian Penal Code. It was further alleged against him that on that date and place he caused the death of Mukhtar Ali, a driver of bus No. U.S. Si 2538 by driving the truck rashly and negligently and, as such, he has committed an offence punishable u/s 304A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The applicant pleaded not guilty. He although admitted the accident but alleged that his tnuck was standing and that he was changing, its stepney but as the bus was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the Government Roadways as a result of which it collided against the standing truck and resulted in breaking the wheels and the spring of the truck. On this plea of defence he denied that he was guilty of having driven the truck rashly and negligently. To prove its case the prosecution produced Yashbir Singh (P.W. 2), Nazim Ali (P. W. 3), and Jagdish Chandra (P.W. 4) Dr. K.K. Singh (P.W. 1), who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mukhtar Ali was also examined as P.W. 1. 3. After examining the evidence on the record the Judicial Magistrate held that the applicant was driving the truck rashly and negligently and was thus responsible for the accident. On this finding he found him guilty of the offence under sections 279 and 304A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to 3 months R. I. u/s 279 and one year's R.I. u/s 304A. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the judicial Magistrate the applicant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge. The appeal was dismissed by the impugned order dated 1-6-1972. While dismissing the appeal the learned Sessions Judge held that the Pro secution evidence proved beyond (sic) doubt that while the truck was in movement it encroached upon a wrong side of the road and as a result of the impact of the truck the driver of the Roadways bus lost his life. While dismissing the appeal the learned Sessions Judge held that the Pro secution evidence proved beyond (sic) doubt that while the truck was in movement it encroached upon a wrong side of the road and as a result of the impact of the truck the driver of the Roadways bus lost his life. On this finding the view taken was that the applicant was guilty of driving the truck negligently and rashly and therefore, he was rightly convicted by the Magistrate under sections 279 and 304-A Indian Penal Code. Feeling aggrieved the applicant has filed the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant (sic) that as the learned Sessions Judge (sic) that there was no reliable evidence with regard to the speed at which the truck was being driven by the applicant at the time of the accident, the conclusion arrived at that the applicant was negligent or was guilty of driving the truck rashly was illegal. It is true that in most of the case a person is said to be guilty of negligent and rash driving if he is found to have been driving the vehicle at a high or fast speed but speed need not necessarily be confused with the question of rash and negligent driving. The speed is not conclusive criteria for deter mining the rash and negligent driving. In the instant case the evidence of P.W. (sic) Yashbir and P.W. 4 Jagdish Chandra shows that bus was moving slowly on the left side of the road and that the truck arrived from the opposite direction and (sic)rashed against the bus and as a result of the impact the driver of the bus lost his life. On the evidence of these two witnesses it was found that the truck was on the wrong side of the road and the application was thus responsible for the accident. It may be noted that accident took place at about 9.45 a.m. on 11th July 1971 when there was sufficient light and there was no reason as to why could the truck (sic) driven on its left when the left side was vacant. This in my opinion fulfils the requirement of section 304-A, which was required to be established by the prosecution. 5. Reference in this connection may also be made to a ruling of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Mrs. Shakila Khader and Others Vs. This in my opinion fulfils the requirement of section 304-A, which was required to be established by the prosecution. 5. Reference in this connection may also be made to a ruling of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Mrs. Shakila Khader and Others Vs. Nausheer Cama and Others, , where the Supreme Court held that the speed was not the only criteria for deciding whether the driving which led to the accident was rash and negligent. One of the criteria for deciding the question of negligence as laid down by the Supreme Court, is also the wrong side of the road. In the instant case it has been found as a fact by the two courts below that the applicant was on the wrong side. Therefore, irrespective of the speed at which the vehicle was being driven by the applicant the two courts below cannot be said to have committed any error of law in finding the applicant guilty of the offences contemplated by sections 279 and 304-A Indian Penal Code. Apart from the above, the question of negligence is one of fact. It has to be decided on the basis of the evidence brought on the record by the parties. Hence as the two courts below have considered the evidence on the record and held that the applicant was negligent, it is not possible to interfere with that finding in the present revision. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration, that 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 evidence. But as there, as here, the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge on assessment of the evidence on the record held that the death of the deceased was caused by negligent driving of the truck by the accused applicant, it is not open to the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and to record its own finding. 6. But to me it appears that the sentence of one year's R.I. awarded to the applicant u/s 304A errs on the side of severity and that ends of justice would be met if the same is reduced from one year to six month. 7. 6. But to me it appears that the sentence of one year's R.I. awarded to the applicant u/s 304A errs on the side of severity and that ends of justice would be met if the same is reduced from one year to six month. 7. Accordingly while maintaining the conviction of the applicant under Sections 279 and 304A Indian Penal Code I reduce the sentence of one year's R.I. awarded u/s 304A, to six months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The applicant is on bail. He shall surrender forthwith to his failing which he shall be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out bail bonus the sentence as modified by me. His bail bonds are cancelled.