S. C. Jain, J. ( 1 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that on 16. 1. 77,at about 9. 30 p. m. a military truck bearing No. T 730 14082e came fromthe side of Tilak Bridge and was proceeding towards India Gate. When it hadcrossed three-fourth of the crossing at Bhagwan Dass Marg and Tilak Marg,a mini bus No DIP 6200, which was being driven by the present petitionerrajinder Singh came at a very fast speed from Mathura Road on Bhagwandass Marg crossing and struck against the military truck with the result thatthe truck turned turtle by falling at a distance of 23 paces from the place ofimpact. The petitioner could manage and control the mini bus with greatdifficulty and could stop it only at a distance of 66 paces by turning towardsleft side of the road at Tilak marg and received some injuries. ( 2 ) AS a result of this accident five passengers travelling in the truckdied and 17 persons received injuries, out of whom injury on Panna Lal wasfound to be grievous in nature. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was challanged and sent for trial under Section304a Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 337/333/27) IPC. After appreciatingthe evidence and law, both the Courts below found the petitioner guiltyof an offence punishable under Sestion 304a Indian Penal Code as well as undersections337/338/279 IPC. ( 4 ) THE conclusion of the trial magistrate, that the petitioner wasdriving the bus at fast speed and he acted in rash and negligent manner anddiscarding the traffic rules entered the crossing at a very fast speed and hit thetruck causing death of five parsons and injuries to 17 persons travellingin the truck, was confirmed by the appellate Court. ( 5 ) THE sentence awarded by the trial Court of rigorous imprisonmentfor 18 months under Section 304a Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for 3 monthsunder Section 279 Indian Penal Code was also confirmed by the appellate Court. Both thesentences were ordered to run concurrently. The sentence of fine was, however,set aside by the appellate Court. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED, this revision petition has been filed. ( 7 ) MR. Both thesentences were ordered to run concurrently. The sentence of fine was, however,set aside by the appellate Court. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED, this revision petition has been filed. ( 7 ) MR. Nawal Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued thatboth the Courts ignored the most important and crucial point that it was thedriver of the truck who was negligent and rash while driving the truck and onaccount of his rashness and negligence this accident occurred resulting in thedeath of five persons and injuries to others. The mini bus was already on thecrossing of Bhagwan Dass Marg and Tilak Marg, when the truck came withfast speed and struck on the right side of the mini bus. According to thelearned counsel, at the crossing both the drivers were under obligation to takeproper care and caution while driving the vehicles. When the mini bus hadreached the crossing prior to the reaching of the truck, it was the duty of thetruck driver to take all reasonable care in order to avoid the unfortunateaccident, but he failed, whereas the petitioner made all the possible attempts toavoid the accident. According to the learned counsel, from the evidence onrecord, it cannot be held that the injuries caused to the passengers of the truckwere direct, immediate, natural and proximate consequence, as a result of rashand negligence driving on the part of the petitioner. The truck hit the minibus and thereafter tried to cross the patri and turned turtle resulting in thedeath of five passengers and injuries to 17 persons. Mere fact that five deathshave taken place and 17 persons have received injuries, is in itself not sufficientto hold the petitioner guilty of this offence. Learned counsel further submittedthat even if it is presumed, though not admitted, that this accident took placeon account of rash and neglieent act on the part of the petitioner, it cannotbe said to be direct, imoaediate, natural and proximate consequence of the rashand negligent driving on the part of the petitioner. The conviction of thepetitioner is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) ON the point of sentence, counsel submitted that the petitioner atthe time of his conviction was a youngman of 23 years of age, not a previousconvict and had two children and old parents to support. The conviction of thepetitioner is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) ON the point of sentence, counsel submitted that the petitioner atthe time of his conviction was a youngman of 23 years of age, not a previousconvict and had two children and old parents to support. The trial Courtought to have accepted his request for releasing him on probation under theprovisions of Probation of Offenders Act. ( 9 ) IT is the duty of the driver to drive his vehicle at a speed whichwill not imperil the safety of others using the road. In order to imposecriminal liability on the accused it must be found as a fact that collission wasentirely or at least mainly due to rashness or negligence on the part of theaccused who was driving the vehicle at that time. It is not sufficient, if it isonly found that the accused was driving at a fast speed. Relationship betweenspeed and rashness depends upon the place and time. The important criteriafor deciding whether driving which led to the accident was rash or negligentwould include not only the speed of the vehicle but also the width of the road,density of the traffic and attempt, if any, to overtake other vehicles resulting incoming to the wrong side of the road being responsible for the accident. Deathshould have the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused andthat act must have been proximate and efficient cause without the interventionof anothers negligence. ( 10 ) KEEPING in view this proposition of law, it has to be seen in thepresent circumstances of the case whether death of five persons and injuries to17 persons is a direct result of rash and negligent act of the petitioner and thatit is proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of other s negligence. Persons can speak lie but circumstances cannot. Besides the oral testimony ofpw1 Kuldip Kumar, and Public Witness 25 Laxman Ram driver of the truck who havesupported the prosecution version on all material particulars, the site planex. PW28/e clearly indicates that the truck had crossed about 3/4th of thecrossing when this impact took place, whereas mini bus had hardly crossed 1/4thof the crossing. Mini bus was coming from the Mathura Road side on Bhagwandass Road which was not the main road, whereas the truck was going on themain road from Tilak Bridge. PW28/e clearly indicates that the truck had crossed about 3/4th of thecrossing when this impact took place, whereas mini bus had hardly crossed 1/4thof the crossing. Mini bus was coming from the Mathura Road side on Bhagwandass Road which was not the main road, whereas the truck was going on themain road from Tilak Bridge. It was the duty of the mini bus driver who wascoming from the side road to be very careful while entering the main road. Mini bus had entered the crossing completely ignoring the fact that the truckwas already on the road and had crossed most of the part of the crossing andin that process front portion of the mini bus struck against the body of thetruck. The photographs Ex. Public Witness 4/1 to Public Witness 4/17 as well as the inspectionreport of the mini bus Ex. PW14/b confirm this fact that the front portion ofthe mini bus had struck against the truck and that is why the truck turnedtowards its right side and turned turtle falling at a distance of 23 paces. Had the speed of the truck been high, the truck would not have stopped at adistance of 23 paces. On the contrary, the mini bus after striking against thetruck turned towards left side on Tilak Marg and did not stop until it crossedthe Patri, lane and eventually stopped at a distance of 66 paces, which indicatesthat it was coming at high speed. As per the inspection report damage to themini bus was to the front portion towards the driver s seat. The Courts belowhave rightly come to the conclusion that it was the mini bus that struck againstthe truck with its front side and that could have been when the bus entered thecrossing when the truck was already there. The damage on the body of thetruck by mechanical inspection cannot be the determining factor because it hadoverturned. Damage to the mini bus gives the clear picture that it had struckagainst the truck turning it turtle resulting in the death of five persons andcausing injuries to 17 poisons. It is the direct result of rash and negligent actof the petitioner and that it is proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of other s negligence. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in theorder of conviction passed by both of the Courts below and I confirm the same. It is the direct result of rash and negligent actof the petitioner and that it is proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of other s negligence. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in theorder of conviction passed by both of the Courts below and I confirm the same. ( 11 ) ON the point of sentence also, it is very unfortunate case ofaccident which resulted in the death of 5 passengers and caused injuries to 17passengers. Such type of offences cannot be viewed lightly and the offendersdeserve severe punishment. Anyhow, the appellate Court has already taken alenient view while giving him relief by setting aside the sentence of imposition offine of Rs. 2000/. The sentence awarded is already on the lower side. ( 12 ) I do not find that any further leniency is required in this case. Revision petition is dismissed. The petitioner is already on bail. He be takeninto custody by the concerned Court for serving the sentence awarded.