JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Kamu Khan was tried for the offence under section 304-A IPC by the Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No. I, Jodhpur and by the judgment dated 14-6 76 was found guilty for that offence and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner preferred an appeal in the court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The case on transfer reached the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, who by his judgment dated 28-9-77 affirmed the conviction but partly allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment. Being dissatisfied by that judgment, the petitioner has come in revision before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case leading to the trial and the conviction of the petitioner are as under :On 10-10 72 at 6.30 A.M. petitioner Kamu Khan was driving truck No. RJQ 9307 from Jodhpur towards Mathania. At Mandore Road, near Chomu House, a three wheeler RJQ 4402 was coming from the front direction. There was a collusion between the truck and three wheeler and the three wheeler driver met his death in that accident. Kamu Khan petitioner lodged an oral report with police station Mahamandir. The case under Section 304-A IPC was registered and the investigation started. The charge-sheet against the petitioner was filed in the court and the learned Magistrate placing reliance on the prosecution evidence, held the petitioner liable for the accident and sentenced him as stated earlier. 3. Mr. B.R. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the findings of the two courts below on the ground that there was no evidence to establish that the driver of the truck being rash and negligent was responsible for the accident. According to the learned counsel the record clearly indicates that the truck driver as well as the three wheeler driver were at fault. The condition of the truck did not show that the truck had gone to the wrong side of the road. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor raised the objection that the concurrent findings of the two courts below regarding the facts of the case should not be interfered with by this Court hearing the revision petition Mr. B.R. Purohit referred to the case of Babulal v. Bhuramal, 1950 RLW 326 . wherein it was observed that in cases where revision petition is once admitted, it is proper to dispose of it on merits. B.R. Purohit referred to the case of Babulal v. Bhuramal, 1950 RLW 326 . wherein it was observed that in cases where revision petition is once admitted, it is proper to dispose of it on merits. The question before the Court was whether it should entertain a revision petition unless the applicant moves the District Magistrate or the Sessions Judge as the case may be, in the first instance. In that view of the matter, it was held that this does not restrict the jurisdiction of the High Court in any way and once the revision petition is admitted it should be disposed of on merits. In the case referred on the point by Mr. B.R. Purohit, Jogindar Singh v. The State, 1968 RLW 35 the principle annunciated was that the High Court will not interfere with the findings of the fact normally, but where lower court has over-looked essential parts of evidence and acted upon inadmissible and extraneous matters High Court will go through entire evidence to do justice. Similar observations were made in the case of Gurudayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1976 WLN 28 to the effect that High Court is slow to interfere with a concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the court below but would certainly interfere in cases where such finding is not supported by evidence or is perverse or is such as no prudent man could have arrived at on the evidence adduced in the case. In the case of Bhakhra Ram v. The State of Rajasthan, 1981 Cr. LR (Raj.) 275 , while including the position of law, that in a criminal revision this Court will not re-appropriate the evidence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was held that the evidence had not been appreciated in proper manner and somehow it was presumed that what the witnesses had deposed was the truth. With this observation the Court proposed to re-appreciate the evidence of the witnesses Mr. Purohit also referred in the case of Koona Ram v. The State of Rajasthan and Another, 1981 Cr. LR (Raj.) 111 . In that case the Court justified going into the depth of the matter in revision because the impugned order of the revisional court was assaulted on the ground of illegality as well as incorrectness and impropriety. Purohit also referred in the case of Koona Ram v. The State of Rajasthan and Another, 1981 Cr. LR (Raj.) 111 . In that case the Court justified going into the depth of the matter in revision because the impugned order of the revisional court was assaulted on the ground of illegality as well as incorrectness and impropriety. The consensus of opinion finding expression in all these cases is, that, the court should re-appreciate the evidence only in exceptional cases when it finds that the courts below have overlooked some important aspect in the evidence or overlooked some material on record affecting the merits of the case. 5. In the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to how the court has misread the evidence or overlooked relevant material. The only point taken is that the statement of Babu Khan (PW 1) who admittedly was there in the truck, at the relevant time, was not given due consideration only for the reason this being hostile to the prosecution. I find nothing illegal in the learned Magistrate not believing a hostile witness, who being in the truck of the accused, might naturally be interested in him. Another argument raised is that the learned Magistrate placing reliance on the solitary testimony of Madan Singh (PW 6) has arrived at a conclusion that it was the mistake of the truck driver which had caused the accident. According to the learned counsel there was no material on record to suggest that the truck went on the wrong side of the road colliding with the three wheeler. 6. Controverting these contentions, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the report of the Mechanic clearly shows that the truck must have gone on the extreme right side of the road involving the three wheeler driver and dragging him to a great distance. Mr. Purohit emphasised on the principle that there must be culpable negligence in holding a person guilty under Section 304-A IPC and the mere fact of the vehicle going on the wrong side of the road will not amount to rash and negligent driving. I am alive of this principle and has examined the matter keeping in view the facts and circumstances pointed out by both the sides to substantiate their respective contentions. I am alive of this principle and has examined the matter keeping in view the facts and circumstances pointed out by both the sides to substantiate their respective contentions. The evidence clearly indicates that the truck had gone to the extreme left and collided with the three-wheeler and dragged the three-wheeler driver to a distance of about 20 paundas. The learned Magistrate, in the view of the matter, has rightly concluded that the driver of the truck was not only negligent in allowing the truck to go to the wrong side of the road, rather was j also rash in driving. In such circumstances it can not be said that the two courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence or have in any way taken into consideration an inadmissible evidence or overlooked the admissible one. 7. Mr. Purohit inter-alia argued that in case his arguments about the innocence of the petitioner do not appeal the Court, still in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, specially the lapse of a period of nine years since the date of accident, a lenient view may be taken and the petitioner may not be sent behind the bars. To support his contention that such a leniency in the given circumstances is called for, he referred to the case of Jagdish Chandra v. State of Delhi, AIR 1973 SC 2127 . The accident in that case had taken place on April 20, 1965 and by the judgment dated April 30, 1966 the accused was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. On September 7, 1966, the appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Revision petition was disallowed on September 2, 1969. When the matter went in the Supreme Court, their Lordships released him on bail on February 2, 1970. According to their lordships, to send the appellant back to jail to serve the sentence of six months after eight years would be highly unjust for the kind of offence which has been upheld against him by the three courts below. In that view of the matter, their Lordships thought it just and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone, which was three weeks, but increased the sentence of fine from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/-. In that view of the matter, their Lordships thought it just and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone, which was three weeks, but increased the sentence of fine from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/-. In the case on hand the accused had to undergo the harassment of criminal trial for more than nine years and the expenses which he must have incurred can be taken into consideration while considering the prayer relating to sentence. It would not be just and proper to send the petitioner behind the bars after the lapse of such a long period The petitioner has of course remained in custody only for a period of eight days after his appeal being dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, but in view of the lapse of time, it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period he had suffered the sentence till now with imposition of fine. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, his sentence is reduced to the period undergone. He is however made liable to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. He is allowed two months time to deposit the amount of fine in the trial court.Revision partly allowed. *******