JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—This revision petition arises out of the judgment in Case No. 24-S/10 of 1986 decided on 4-9-1986 by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan and Sirmaur Districts at Camp Nalagarh, confirming the judgment of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Arki camp at Nalagarh, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of the payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner assails this decision by way of this revision petition, 2. The allegations against the petitioner, in brief, are that on 20-11-1984, while driving bus No. HPA-811 from Nalagarh to Kalka, he crushed Master Suresh Kumar to death at about 5 p. m. due to his rash and negligent driving. The place of accident was near Pirthan. The trial commenced and ended in the aforesaid conviction of the appellant which was, on appeal, maintained by the appellate court. 3. Shri A. K. Goel, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the courts below have failed to take into account the evidence of Shrimati Vidya Devi (PW 2), mother of the deceased, as well as of Kumari Usha (PW 3), sister of the deceased, to the effect that the petitioner had made all out efforts to avert the accident and that the deceased had struck in the hind portion of the bus. Further, it is submitted that the bus was not being driven either rashly or negligently as the same overloaded, passengers were even sitting on the roof of the bus. Besides, it was taking a curve near the place of accident. The appreciation of evidence by the courts below qua PWs 1, 2, 3 and 7 has been challenged by the learned Counsel by pointing out certain contradictions in their statements. Much stress has been laid on those parts of the statements which mention about the speed of the vehicle and the part of the body of the bus which struck the deceased. Much stress has been laid on those parts of the statements which mention about the speed of the vehicle and the part of the body of the bus which struck the deceased. The attempt of the learned Counsel is to demonstrate and convince the court that, because the driver made an effort to save the child and that it struck only in the hind portion of the bus ; so the driver was neither rash nor negligent. 4. Although in this revision petition, this Court is not to reappreciate the evidence already appreciated by two courts below, however, in the interest of justice and for the decision of this case, reference to some important aspect of the evidence on the record is necessary. 5. Shri Prem Chand (PW 1) father of the deceased, states that the bus was moving at a high speed and the child was crushed underneath the bus although the child had reached the kutcha portion of the road meaning thereby, the child bad crossed the road, still the driver came over to that side and crushed the child; although in his cross-examination he has admitted that at the time of the accident, he was in his house at a distance of about 50 feet from the place of occurrence. However, it is a fact that he reached the place of occurrence immediately afterwards. He has stated that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver and due to the excessive speed of the vehicle. 6. Shrimati Vidya Devi (PW 2) has also stated that the bus was in fast speed and the child came underneath the same. No benefit can be derived by the accused from her statement that the bus went to the kutcha portion of the road after the driver had applied brakes to the vehicle as how this illiterate, poor and rustic lady would know that the driver had applied brakes and due to defect in the same the bus went to the kutcha portion of the road. 7. Kumari Usha (PW 3) is the most important witness. She was with the deceased at the time of the accident. She states that the bus was moving at a fast speed it crushed the deceased who was on the kutcha portion of the road at that time. 7. Kumari Usha (PW 3) is the most important witness. She was with the deceased at the time of the accident. She states that the bus was moving at a fast speed it crushed the deceased who was on the kutcha portion of the road at that time. She had specifically denied the suggestion of the accused that the deceased was moving this way and that way on the road when the bus came. Her statement that the hind portion of the bus hit the deceased is not of much consequence in view of her clearcut statement that the bus crushed the deceased while coming from Nalagarh side. 8. Shri Rup Chand (PW 4), Mechanic H.R.T.C., Nalagarh, states that on road test he found that on application of brakes, the bus would go towards the left side. He states that the bus had defect in its brakes. The same fact was written by him in his report. He admits that in case the driver knows that the brakes are defective, it is his duty not to drive the vehicle forward; rather he should stop the same. 9. Examination of this aspect of the matter indicates that the attempt of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is to show that due to the defective brakes, the driver made an effort to save the boy but due to defective brakes the vehicle moved on to the left side with the result that the boy was hit by the hind portion of the same. I am not at all convinced by this argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perusal of site plan and documents marked A9 By and ‘D’ indicate that the road at this place is quite broad, straight and metalled. It is in evidence that the deceased had crossed the metalled portion of the road and was hit while he was on the kutcha portion of the road. There was no question of the driver applying the brakes when he had enough space to move the vehicle on the pucca portion of the road. This clearly indicates that he was driving the vehicle not only rashly but also negligently. There was no question of the driver applying the brakes when he had enough space to move the vehicle on the pucca portion of the road. This clearly indicates that he was driving the vehicle not only rashly but also negligently. Added to this is the fact that he was driving this vehicle despite the fact that it did not have efficient brake system, even if his story is admitted that the bus went towards the left side of the road on application of the brakes. He knew this fact. Either he should not have driven this vehicle at all and if he was driving this vehicle, he should have been more and more careful in doing so. Further, it is in evidence that he had overloaded his bus. Besides passengers inside the bus, there were many persons on the bus top. The circumstances, therefore, indicate not only rashness but also negligence on his part to take precautions which are expected from drivers incharge of heavy vehicles. It is seen that drivers incharge of heavy vehicles care little for pedestrains as well as for small vehicles on the road. The result, therefore, is that heavy vehicles which cause accidents are more in number and cause more devastating accidents as compared to small vehicles. 10. In these circumstances, the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner have no substance and I have no reason to take a contrary view than the one already taken by two courts below and confirm the conviction of the petitioner under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. But as there is no sufficient evidence relating to the offence under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, I set-aside the conviction of the appellant for this offence. 11. On the question of sentence, Shri A. K. Goel, has made com passionate submissions. It is argued that the accused is a first offender and after this accident, there is no accident in which he is involved. It is further submitted that the petitioner has number of small children to support and in case he is awarded punishment, he will not only lose his job but also put his family in immense difficulties. It is argued that the accused is a first offender and after this accident, there is no accident in which he is involved. It is further submitted that the petitioner has number of small children to support and in case he is awarded punishment, he will not only lose his job but also put his family in immense difficulties. On the conduct part of the accused, it is submitted by his counsel that as soon as the accident took place, he stopped the vehicle and took the deceased to the hospital in the same bus. Therefore, the facts of this case justify giving of benefit to the accused under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. After looking to these submissions of the learned Counsel for the accused as well as the facts and circumstances of this case, the ruinous effects on the accused and his family and the long lapse of time in the litigation faced by the accused, I, as a special case, feel that the accused be given benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and released as such. I, therefore, direct that the accused be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on execution of a bond with one surety to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during this period. The personal bond and surety bond will be submitted by the accused before the Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, within one month from today. The Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh will accept the same after receiving a report from the Probation Officer concerned and will inform this Court of any lapse, if any, committed by the accused during this period so that further order of sentence in accordance with law is imposed. 12. However, under section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, I direct the accused to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation to the father of the deceased in two equal instalments within a period of three months from today. On failure to do so, the accused will undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Matter decided accordingly. Order accordingly.