G. S. N. TRIPATHI, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 15-11-95 passed by the learned Hnd Addl. C. J. M. , Shahjahanpur in Criminal Case No. 452 of 1995, State v. Mukeem whereby, the learned Magistrate has awarded three months S. I. on a charge under Section 279 IPC and a fine of Rs. 500. On failure to pay the fine, one months S. I. would have to be undergone additionally. Again the accused revisionist was awarded 6 months S. I. on a charge under Section 304 IPC and further or dered to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 as fine. On failure to pay the fine, 2 months additional S. I. was awarded. 2. A Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 95 was filed against the judgment and order dated 15-11-95, which was dismissed by the learned 1st Adi. Sessions Judge, Shahjahan pur vide his order dated 23-10-96. The learned counsel has challenged both the aforesaid judgments before this Court. 3. The admitted position is that on 3-3-92 at about 1 p. m. The revisionist was driving truck No. UPM- 9955 at Puttulal Chauraha. He crushed the father of the complainant, who was trying to escape and the man resultantly died. The accused was arrested on the spot. After usual investiga tion, a charge sheet was laid against the revisionist, which resulted into his convic tion and sentence as noted above. 4. This revision has been admitted only on the point of sentence. 5. I must thank the learned counsel that he has not challenged the finding of fact recorded by both the courts below. 6. The injuries received by the deceased, have been noted at page 2 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judges judgment. It has been found that the accused was driving the vehicle recklessly and very fast. The truck first dashed againt an electric pole and thereafter, it dashed against the Khokha, which was further in the west of the road, where the deceased was doing the work of repairing cycles. The whole of the truck went on the thigh of the deceased as a result of which, he received injuries and died. 7. It was the case of the accused revisionist before the court below that the brake suddenly failed, resulting the vehicle going out of control. The whole of the truck went on the thigh of the deceased as a result of which, he received injuries and died. 7. It was the case of the accused revisionist before the court below that the brake suddenly failed, resulting the vehicle going out of control. The expert had ex amined the truck and did not find that the brake had failed. Therefore, the solitary plea of the revisionist stood totally un proved rather it disproved. As against it, from the oral evidence of natural witnesses available on the record, it established that the vehicle was being driven in a very rash manner by the accused. Thus the bread- earner of the family met an untimely death, causing colossal loss, both financial as well as psychological to the remaining members of the family. It is also established that the offence was committed in a busy market area, which by itself is relevant and that invites the drivers attention to reduce the speed of their vehicles. But the driver in the present case ignored all these precautions and continued to drive rashly, very fact and negligently. Thus the circumstance revealingly and tellingly show and prove that the accused was guilty of the crime, for which he has been convicted. 8. The question of sentence was raised by the learned counsel and he prayed that a leniency may be shown. Unfortunately, I do not agree with the learned counsel. He took a wrong plea that the brake had failed, therefore, the incident occurred, which has been found to be totally wrong. Once this plea of the accused is ignored, there remains no other plea raised on his behalf. So, it is clearly established that the conduct of the accused was nothing but reprehensible. It means that the he has no regard for human live. He did not discharge his duties like a reasonable and prudent man. Therefore, the question of showing any leniency to him does not arise. 9. The revision is accordingly dis missed. Revision dismissed. .