JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.: Koma Nand petitioner has que his conviction and sentence imposed by Sub/Divisional Judicial Ma; Kandaghat dated 11-9-1992 under Sections 279337 and 338, I.P.C was up-held in appeal by Shri R.S. Negi, Sessions Judge, Solan Solan, H.P. 2. Petitioner was prosecuted for having committed offence Sections 279/337/338 of the I.P.C. According to prosecution, the pe was working as a driver with Hiir. achal Road Transport Corporation inaftcr referred to as the H.R.T.C.) and on 27- 6-1990 a telephonic in tion was received in Police Station Kandaghat that the bus belonging H.R.T.C. has met with an accident near Gaura and needful be don Swaran Singh accompanied by other staff fron the Police Statioi daghat left for the spot, but since darkness had set in by the time the party reached the spot nothing could be done on that day, both the pel as well as the conductor of the bus were not found on the spot. Nextm it transpired that bus bearing registration No.HPA - 6329 had fallen Khud which was being driven by the respondent in a rash and nc; planner resulting in the accident in question; Passengers who were bus according to prosecution made requests to the petitioner to slovs the bus in question but of no avail and he continued to drive the, sai high speed. As a resultof this act of rash and negligent driving on tl of the petitioner, it rolled down the khud resulting in causing simple i as grievous injuries to number of occupants. A.S.I. Swaran Singh Ruqua Ex.PW-8/A from the spot on the basis of which FIRNo.46 o Ex.PW-8/B came to be registered at Police Station, Kandaghat. 3. During the course of investigation, the bus was salvaged fn Khud and was taken into possession as also it was got mechanically exr from a mechanic PW-11 Amar Singh. Injured passengers were got me* examined and medico legal certificates in respect of such passengers we taken from the Medical Officer concerned. Exhibit PW-7/A, E.X.PW-Ex.PW 7 J were medical certificates in respect of passengers viz. Satya Vccna Devi, Sujata, Partishta, Kala, Partasha, J:i Ram Baldcv Sins Krishan and Jaishi Ram. It was found in the aforcsad medical certificat the injuries sustained by these persons were simple n nature. Vide Ex.P it was opined that Mast Ram passenger had sustained grievous injury. Exhibit PW-7/A, E.X.PW-Ex.PW 7 J were medical certificates in respect of passengers viz. Satya Vccna Devi, Sujata, Partishta, Kala, Partasha, J:i Ram Baldcv Sins Krishan and Jaishi Ram. It was found in the aforcsad medical certificat the injuries sustained by these persons were simple n nature. Vide Ex.P it was opined that Mast Ram passenger had sustained grievous injury. behalf it may also be appropriate to mention that reference is made cross-examination of doctor in this behalf, it is evident that there is no s dispute regarding the aforesaid persons having sustained injuries as a re accident in question. ,. . 4. After completion of the investigation, challan was put in court e the petitioner where notice of accusation for being guilty of offences Sections 279/337/338 of the I.P.C. was-issued to him to which he pleaded not I guilty. After completion of trial the petitioner was convicted as under: Offence Sentence:- 1. 27I.P.C. 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/-. In case of nonpayment of fine 2 months further R.I., 2. 337 I.P.C. 6 months R. I. and fine of Rs.500/-. In case of nonpayment of fine 2 months further R.I 3. 338I.P.C. 9 months RI. and fine of Rs. 1000/- In case of nonpayment of fine 3 months further R.I AM the sentences were to run concurrently. 5. Peationer questioned the aforesaid judgment passed by the trial court before the lewer appellate court wherein-.the judgment convicting the petitioner was up-helc, however, sentence was reduced and modified to the extent of payment of fine only keeping in view the &gc of the appellant as also his being first offender. It may be appropriate to mention that on the day of accident, me appellant wis around 37 years of age. . 6. VTnile considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, it may be wcrth while- to notice the circumstances whereunder the accident had taken place as well as the defence putforth by the respondent. Accident is not even disputed by the petitioner whose defence is thatthe same was the result of sudden locking of the steering wheel. Petitioner also examined one DW Subhash Chind, who is also a co-driver with the petitioner and had been driving the ill fated bus HPA-6329 since after three months of the accident in question. Accident is not even disputed by the petitioner whose defence is thatthe same was the result of sudden locking of the steering wheel. Petitioner also examined one DW Subhash Chind, who is also a co-driver with the petitioner and had been driving the ill fated bus HPA-6329 since after three months of the accident in question. Another marerial fact in this case is that it is not in dispute that the road where the bus was plied as well as the point where accident had taken place is a kacha one and at the site of accident, there is a curve. It has come in the statement of DW-1 that on the day of accident on the upper side of the road a house was under construction, debris whereof had fallen on the road which had resulted in the road becoming tilted resulting in the bus becoming imbalanced and further the rend is narrow at the place of accident. 7. Shri G.D. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner first submitted that the accident was not the result of any rash or negligent driving on the part of the petitioner. It was due to sudden locking of the steering wheel and further occause of there being debris oc the road on account of construction t>f the house above the road at that point, is such, both the courts below have fallen into error in ignoring this material aspect of the case. Shri G.D. Vcrma further urged in support of this revision that the courts below have further fallen into error by placing reliance on the statements of PWs-1 to 4 i.e. passengers who were travelling in the bus in question at the time of accident and had sustained injuries because, none of them has been able to spell out the speed of the bus and who had made parrot like statements that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and the petitioner did not slow down despite having been called upon by the passengers to do so. 8. 8. On the other hand, Shri M.L. Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, while controverting all the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, pointed out that the petitioner is clearly guilty of rash and negligent driving endangering human life which resulted in causing simple as well as grievous injuries to the persons who were travailing in the bus in question According to him looking to the nature of the road and its width, it is a clear cut case of omission on the part of the petitioner who failed not only to take-due care and caution but despite having been called upon to do so by slow mg down the speed, he failed to do the.needful resulting in accident in question 9. In the context of the present case, it may be worthwhile to mention. that the road was admittedly kacha and the point where the accident took place I was narrow. It will depend upon situation to situation as to what act is rash and | negligent. In the present case the speed of 15 to 20 KMs can be termed as rash and negligent especially when the road was kacha as well as narrow at the place of the accident. So no universal criteria can be laid to define that what would constitute rashness as well as negligence in a particular case. Petitioner in the present case was required to be not only cautious and careful but has failed to . pay heed to the request of the passengers to slow down the bus in question 1 This shows that he was totally-careless in discharging his duties. What to talk of being careful himself despite having been called upon to do so, he failed to slow down the bus. This fact assumes significance in the light of the statement of DW-1 who has categorically stated that-at the place of accident road is. narrow. It has slightly tilted because of putting of debris of the house which was being constructed on the upper side of the road. At this point it was expected of the petitioner to have adopted a reasonable and proper approach by properly steering the bus so that human rives were not endangered. In stead of doing so, he persisted with his driving at a high speed. At this point it was expected of the petitioner to have adopted a reasonable and proper approach by properly steering the bus so that human rives were not endangered. In stead of doing so, he persisted with his driving at a high speed. So far manner in which the vehicle was being driven by the petitioner is concerned, there is no doubt in the face of the evidence produced by the prosecution of PWs I to 4 namely, Bladev Singh, Smt. Satya Devi, Hukam Singh and Puran Singli. respectively that it is a case of sheer carelessness as well as negligence ami omission on the part of the petitioner to have driven the vehicle with due car and caution. So far defence regarding the steering wheel getting locked i concerned, the same appears to be after thought. When the statement ol. IW 11 Amar Singh, Mechanic is seen it further belies the stand of the petitioner In addition to this, this defence does not appear to be justified becausepetitioiu ? examined DW-il in order to show that the accident had taken place because oi the road being narrow, there being debris at the site as also that the road hu\ m tilted to one side and the bus getting unbalanced at the place of occurrence In view of thess frets, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner do u i hold the ground and those arc hereby rejected. 10. Inthc face of the evidence on rccord^jio fault can be found with i!k-findings recorded by the trial courts below accordingly those arc upheld. Now remains the question to be seen as to how the petitioner should be dealt with the matter of punishment So far substantive sentence is concerned, Uic same is not there in view of the judgment of the appellate court below. 11. Shri G.D. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while arguing has submitted that in case his submissions fall to the ground, then in that event his client should be given an opportunity to reform himself. It was , Hither urged that he is the sole bread winner of his family besides being firsj offender. According to Shri G.D. Verma, keeping in view the present trend ( penology his client should be given a chance for mending his ways and thusl he prays that instead of imposing fine on him benefit of provisions of Section! It was , Hither urged that he is the sole bread winner of his family besides being firsj offender. According to Shri G.D. Verma, keeping in view the present trend ( penology his client should be given a chance for mending his ways and thusl he prays that instead of imposing fine on him benefit of provisions of Section! 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act needs to be extended to his client as I according to him, if it is not done because of the acts of his client, his family! would be put to starvation and leading to other complications affecting the | education, upkeep and maintenance of his children. 12. Having given a serious thought to these submissions, it is felt that it I would be in the interest of justice to extend benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner instead of sentencing him for payment of fine as ordered by the courts below and accordingly judgments are modified in that behalf. It is ordered that the petitioner shall furnish a bond in the sum of Rs.5000/- under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to be of good behaviour for a period of one year from the date of execution of the bond before the trial court within a period of four weekt from today. 13. With the aforesaid modification, this revision petition is dismissed.