Order.- The revision petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli of an offence punishable under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five weeks. The learned Magistrate had also ordered that under section 17(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the revision petitioner be disqualified from holding a driving licence for a period of five months. He had further directed that out of the fine amount collected, a sum of Rs. 400 be paid to P.W.1 as compensation. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the conviction but he modified the sentence into one of fine of Rs. 1,000 out of which he ordered Rs. 900 to be paid to P.W.1 as compensation. He set aside the order of the learned First Class Magistrate disqualifying the revision petitioner from holding a driving licence for a period of five months. 2. The facts appearing in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution briefly stated are as follows: On 14th April, 1975, at about 12 noon, P.W.1 who was residing at Kalathumettu proceeded along with his son aged about 9 years towards the tea shop situate by the side of the Trichy-Madras trunk road. They were both proceeding from north to south along the eastern side of the road. The boy was going in advance of P.W.1. At that time the bus driven by the revision petitioner came along the road from north to south keeping to the eastern side of the road and knocked down the boy and the right rear wheel of the bus went over the boy’s head with the result that the head was crushed and the brain matter came out and the boy died instantaneously. Apart from P.W.1, P.Ws. 2 and 3 who claim to be tea shop-keepers keeping tea shops on the western side of the trunk road also claim to have witnessed the occurrence. Apart from P.W.1, P.Ws. 2 and 3 who claim to be tea shop-keepers keeping tea shops on the western side of the trunk road also claim to have witnessed the occurrence. Apart from the evidence of these witnesses, there was the evidence of P.W.6 the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government hospital, Srirangam with regard to the autopsy conducted by him on the dead body, the evidence of P.W.4 the Motor Vehicles Inspector, who found the efficiency of the foot brake at 60% and the steering satisfactory, the evidence of P.W.5 who took photographs of the scene of the occurrence and also the evidence of P.W.7 the investigating officer. The revision petitioner’s contention was that he was driving the bus slowly but the boy suddenly crossed the road and fell down on being hit by the bus. He examined one witness on his side who testified as D.W. 1 that he himself was seated in the bus and when the bus was proceeding along the road the boy ran across the road from one of the tea shops on the western side of the road and the front right side of the bus came into contact with the boy who fell down and the right rear wheel of the bus ran over him. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence found that the occurrence was not the result of any rash driving of the bus by the accused but that “the evidence on record clearly bore out that the revision petitioner was driving the bus negligently, for the revision petitioner failed to exercise that amount of caution in driving the bus in order to prevent the occurrence of this type”. The learned Magistrate, it might be noted, has found that he “did not find any circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3”. The learned Sessions Judge concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate. 3. It is now contended before me by Mr. Arunachalam, appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner that the version put forward by D.W. 1 is more probable than the version put forward by P.Ws. 1 to 3 that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 with regard to the manner in which the boy was knocked down is inconsistent with the fact that the right side rear wheel of the bus had run over the head of the boy. 1 to 3 that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 with regard to the manner in which the boy was knocked down is inconsistent with the fact that the right side rear wheel of the bus had run over the head of the boy. Mr. Arunachalam has further contended that P.Ws. 2 and 3 could not have witnessed the occurrence at all for they were tea shopkeepers keeping their tea shops on the western side of the road and they must have been quite busily engaged with serving their customers on account of the fact that that day happened to be a festival day. 4. While the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is that when the boy was going along the eastern side of the road from north to south followed by his father P.W.1, the bus driven by the revision petitioner came from north to south along the eastern side of the road and knocked down and ran over the boy. The defence contention as amplified by the testimony of D.W. 1 is that the boy suddenly ran across the road and hit against the middle portion of the bus and fell down and the right rear wheel went over him. The suggestion put to P.Ws.1 to 3 that this was the way in which the accident took place was refuted by all the three witnesses, who emphatically denied that the boy ran across the road. Of course if the boy had run across the road when the bus was quite close to him, the driver of the bus could not have avoided hitting the boy. In that case there would be no question of any negligence or rashness on the part of the revision petitioner. But if on the other hand the boy was going along the eastern portion of the road from north to south and the bus had come from north to south along that side of the road behind him and knocked down him and had run over him, then undoubtedly the driver of the bus would be liable for he would have seen the boy if he had kept a careful look out while driving the bus. Therefore it has to be seen which of the two versions is more probable. In order to show that the version put forward by P.Ws.1 to 3 is highly improbable, Mr. Therefore it has to be seen which of the two versions is more probable. In order to show that the version put forward by P.Ws.1 to 3 is highly improbable, Mr. Arunachalam first of all pointed out that according to the evidence of these witnesses the front left side of the bus came into contact with the boy and knocked him down and then the right rear wheel went over the boy. Mr. Arunachalam has argued that the right rear wheel could not have so gone over the boy if it was the front left side of the bus which had come into contact with him while the boy was going ahead of the bus. Mr. Arunachalam has argued that the fact that the rear right wheel of the bus went over the boy would show that the boy had ran across the road and hit against the bus and fell down and as a result thereof the right rear wheel went over him as testified to by D.W. 1. But then I am not able to raise such an inference for if the left front side of the bus had hit the boy while the boy was going in front of the bus keeping to the eastern side of the road and the boy had been knocked down by that impact, it is quite likely that the right rear wheel went over him, even though the bus had not swerved towards the left or the right, by reason of the shifting of the body of the boy after he had fallen down on being hit by the bus. It cannot be said with any amount of certainty that the boy, immediately after having been knocked down by the front portion of the bus, would have become perfectly still. It is quite likely that on being hit by the bus from behind the boy fell between the two front wheels and on account of the twitching of the body the right rear wheel had ran over his head. Therefore from the single circumstance that the right rear wheel had gone over the head of the boy, it is not possible to conclude that the version put forward by P.Ws.1 to 3 is false while that put forward by D.W. 1 is more probable. 5. Therefore from the single circumstance that the right rear wheel had gone over the head of the boy, it is not possible to conclude that the version put forward by P.Ws.1 to 3 is false while that put forward by D.W. 1 is more probable. 5. As far as the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is concerned, P.W.1 is the father of the boy while P.Ws.2 and 3 are persons keeping tea shops on the western side of the road which is opposite to the scene of the occurrence, though from the evidence it appears that that day was a festival day, yet there is nothing to show that in these two tea shops of P.Ws.2 and 3 there were large number of customers. The time of the occurrence is stated to be about noon. It is not possible therefore to infer or presume that at that hour, it being a festival day, there should have been a number of customers in the tea shops of P.Ws.2 and 3. No suggestion was put to these witnesses in cross-examination that there were a number of customers in their tea shops and as such they would have been busy attending to those customers and would not have looked out towards the road side to witness the occurrence. 6. With regard to the evidence of D.W. 1, no doubt, he has stated that he was travelling in the bus at that time. According to him he was seated on the fourth seat behind the driver. It is difficult to believe that from that position he was able to keep a look out of the road and to see the boy running suddenly across the road. The first information report Exhibit P-1 given by P.W.1 is consistent only with the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3. Both the Courts below have also considered the question as to whether it was probable that the bus would have avoided hitting P.W.1 but hit only his son who was proceeding on the western side of the road in advance of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 would show that the boy was going at the extreme edge of the tarred portion of the road while he himself was going along the mud portion. Therefore, there is nothing improbable in the bus having avoided P.W.1, knocked down the boy who was going ahead of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 would show that the boy was going at the extreme edge of the tarred portion of the road while he himself was going along the mud portion. Therefore, there is nothing improbable in the bus having avoided P.W.1, knocked down the boy who was going ahead of P.W.1. Of course, both the Courts below have found that the revision petitioner was not driving the bus at an excessive speed or in a rash manner. But nevertheless, relying on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 they have found that the revision petitioner was driving the bus in a negligent manner and had knocked down the boy who was going ahead of the bus. There are no circumstances which would persuade me to disagree with that finding of both the Courts below. It may also be noted that this is a revision. The limits of the propriety of interference in a criminal revision case have been pointed out in a number of decisions. No doubt, even in respect of the concurrent findings of the two Courts below such interference would be justified but only where the conscience of the Court is satisfied that in the broad interests of justice the conviction is not sustainable because vital evidence has been overlooked or has not been given due consideration. Mr. Arunachalam seeks to bring this case within the category of cases where vital evidence has been overlooked or has not been given due consideration. He has pointed out that the fact that P.W.3 had stated contrary to the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 that the driver of the bus swerved the bus and hence the right rear wheel went over the boy has not been noted by both the Courts below. But then both the Courts below have considered the argument advanced before them to the effect that the right rear wheel of the bus could not have gone over the boy’s head if the boy had been hit by the bus which came behind him. Therefore this is not a case where any vital evidence has been overlooked or has not been given due consideration. Therefore this is not a case where any vital evidence has been overlooked or has not been given due consideration. The question whether the evidence is or is not worthy of credit is a question of fact and when both the Courts below have accepted the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 it is not for the revisional Court to go into the question and disagree with the findings of both the Courts below. It is only where there is no evidence to support the finding or where the finding arrived at is perverse or such as no reasonable person would have arrived at on the evidence adduced that interference by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction would be justified. Such power should be exercised only where the Courts below have not approached the case either with a clear appreciation of the issues involved or with a clear understanding of the principles of criminal law and such interference would not be justified upon the merits unless the record shows that the evidence is not capable of sustaining the conviction. In Narayan Tewary v. State of West Bengal1, it has been observed that where the point for determination was one of fact depending on appreciation of oral evidence and the trial Court had dealt with the matter fully and was satisfied that the case of the prosecution had been established, the High Court in revision can rightly decline to interfere with the finding. On a consideration of the evidence adduced in this case, I do not find any ground to interfere in revision with the finding of both the Courts below that the revision petitioner drove the bus in a negligent manner and thereby he knocked down and ran over the unfortunate boy. I therefore confirm the convictions of the revision petitioner. 7. Mr. Arunachalam vehemently pleaded for a reduction of the sentence to enable the revision petitioner to get back his job. The revision petitioner has been sentenced to pay only a fine of Rs. 1,000 and out of that amount Rs. 900 had been ordered to be paid as compensation to P.W.1. No substantive sentence of imprisonment has been meted out to him. It cannot be said that this sentence is harsh. I therefore see no reason to interfere with the sentence either. The revision petition is dismissed.