Honble MADAN, J.–The arguments have been heard on admission and the matter is being finally decided at the admission stage itself. (2). This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 1.8.98 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, in Criminal Appeal No.7/96, where by the learned Appellate Court confirmed the order of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, in Cr.Case No.414/88 convicting the petitioner for the offences u/Ss. 279 and 304-A IPC and imposing upon him fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months simple imprisonment for the offence u/S. 279 IPC and sentencing him to undergo one years simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 304-A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the trial Court. (3). The facts which are relevant for deciding this revision petition briefly stated are that on 2.9.88 at about 10 A.M., complainant Pokar Ram, F.C. No. 162, Police Station Ratangarh, while returning from Bharpalsar lodged a report that at about 9 A.M. when he was coming towards Ratangarh walking from the railway gate of Bharpalsar and after having travelled a distance of about half Km. away from the gate on the road from opposite side, one truck bearing No. RSF 6929 was approaching with a high speed. The deceased was standing towards the side of the road. The said tuck hit him and as a consequence of which, the deceased fell down and he was run over by the tyre of the said truck with the result that his face, head, left hand and right foot were badly injured and it was a case of instantaneous death on the spot. The FIR was lodged by the complainant Pokar Ram , who is the eye witness of the incident. After reaching the Police Station at about 10 A.M. on the date of occurrence itself i.e. 2.9.1988, Pokar Ram, F.C.No.162, lodged the report, which was registered against the petitioner for the offence u/Ss. 279 and 304-A IPC. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was taken to the Govt. Hospital, Ratangarh, where post mortem of the deceased was conducted by the doctor on duty. On medical examination of the deceased, following injuries were found on his person :- ``1. 279 and 304-A IPC. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was taken to the Govt. Hospital, Ratangarh, where post mortem of the deceased was conducted by the doctor on duty. On medical examination of the deceased, following injuries were found on his person :- ``1. Upper middle and fore head of skull open cavity empty except small piece of brain; 2. Head & face compressed lateraly mouth open mandible left and tongue protruding out; 3. Multiple bruise left side of face, neck; 4. Lower part of left ear absent; 5. Both eyes intact; 6. Lac. wound dorsal aspect left hand muscle & tendons exposed; 7. Lac. wound cmp. fracture left forearm bones from elbow to middle of forearm; 8. Abrasion 4" x 2" Rt. shoulder; 9. Abrasion 2" x 1" Rt. near chest; 10. Lac. wound crushed bone & muscles Rt. leg middle 2/3rd; 11. Multiple abrasion left foot near toes; 12. Multiple abrasion middle of chest & left side of chest near nipple. (4). In the opinion of the medical jurist, the cause of death was shock due to multiple crushed injuries and injuries to the brain. (5). The factum of accident is, thus, fully established from the relevant documents on the record i.e. the F.I.R., post mortem report, description of the injuries on the person of the deceased and the opinion of the medical jurist, who conducted the post mortem. The mechanical inspection of the vehicle was also got done by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.P.15, from perusal of which it is revealed that there was no mechanical fault with the vehicle at time when the accident occurred. The test driving of the said truck was also got done by the Investigating Officer by driving the truck from the Police Station to the site of accident from which it was revealed that it was mechanically in a sound condition and hence no mechanical fault could be attributed to the said truck. The test driving of the said truck was also got done by the Investigating Officer by driving the truck from the Police Station to the site of accident from which it was revealed that it was mechanically in a sound condition and hence no mechanical fault could be attributed to the said truck. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the Investigating Officer as well as after examining all other relevant documentary evidence on the record came to the conclusion that since the accident itself was not in dispute, the vehicle was appre- hended from the place of occurrence itself, the dead body of the deceased was also recovered from the site of accident and consequently, the ingredients of Sec. 304-A IPC are fully attracted to the case because it is a case where the death has occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said truck i.e. the petitioner. (6). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also examined the statements of the witnesses as well as the relevant documents on the record. (7). Prima facie I am of the considered opinion that what the prosecution has to prove before the trial Court where an accused has been charged for causing death by rash and negligent driving punishable under Sec.304-A IPC is that there must be direct nexus between the death of a person and rash and negligent act of the accused. The reasonable foresight is the criterion of negligence. Mere negligen- ce is not enough to bring the case within the ambit of Sec.304-A IPC. The negligence or rashness, if consistently and successfully proved in evidence by the prosecution there is no reason as to why the accused should not be punished for commission of the offence. In the instant case, the prosecution has successfully proved and established beyond reasonable doubt that the accident, which had oc- curred, resulting in death of a person, was a direct result of the rash and negligent driving of the erring vehicle by the petitioner. In the instant case, the prosecution has successfully proved and established beyond reasonable doubt that the accident, which had oc- curred, resulting in death of a person, was a direct result of the rash and negligent driving of the erring vehicle by the petitioner. The maximum sentence, which is awarded to an accused causing death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide is two years or with fine or with both for the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC, as against which the petitioner has been awarded simple imprisonment for one years and a fine of Rs. 2,00/-in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. For the offence u/S.297 IPC fire of Rs. 500/- and in default simple imprisonment for one month was imposed upon him, sentence was ordered to run concurrently, while the period of detention under gone by the accused in Police and Judicial custody was directed to be set off against his actual sentence as per Section 428 Cr.P.C. In my view, the ingredients of provisions of Section 304-A IPC are fully attracted and I do not find any apparent error or illegality committed by the Courts below in convicting the petitioner on the ground of his culpable negligence for causing death by rash and negligent driving which is fully established on the basis of the evidence on record. I am of the considered opinion that when the Courts below have concurrently, on due appreciation of evidence arrived-at the conclusion that when the offence is fully established, there is hardly any scope for interference nor there is any mitigating circumstance, which would justify interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 397/401 IPC. (8). I am fortified in my aforesaid observations from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1), where in the question had arisen in special leave petition preferred by the appellant against the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court upon his conviction awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court as to whether in a case of rash and ne- gligent driving resulting in fatal accident, whether any compassion should be shown to the accused ? It was observed by the Apex Court that the driver must have a better training in traffic laws and moral responsibility, with special reference to the potential injury to human life and limb. Punishment in this area must, therefore, be accompanied by these components. The State should attach a course for better driving together with a livelier sence of responsibility, when the punishment is for traffic offence. Since the rash and negligent driving had resulted in fatal accident, the Apex Court refused to interfere with the maximum sentence of two years R.I. awarded to the truck driver on the ground that he had to maintain a large family to support for the reason that when a life has been lost and the circumstance of driving are harsh, no compassion should be shown. In my view, the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court is fully attracted to this case. Applying the doctrine of ``Res Ipse Loquitor also i.e. the incident speaks for itself, the offence is fully established and the ingredients of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner are also established on the basis of the evidence on record. Hence I find no merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel for interfering with the judgments rendered by the Courts below. (9). On the question of sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that having regard to the fact that petitioner has already under- gone two months simple imprisonment as against the one years S.I. awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court, this Court may lake a lenient view of the matter and reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused petitioner. Prima facie, I do not find any justification for interfering with the concurrent findings of the Courts below nor do I find any illegality in appreciation of evidence by the Courts below. Moreover, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, it is not incumbent for this Court to enter into appreciation of evidence but it has only to find out if there is any illegality apparent on the face of the order or in the matter of petitioner not having been given adequate opportunity to defend himself or on the aspect of framing of charge, then and then only, this Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction by interfering with the same. It has rather come in evidence that the site where the accident occurred, was a very open wide road which obviously means that there was sufficient space for passing of the vehicle and so much so the deceased, when he was hit by the erring vehicle, was standing on the left side of the road. (10). For the reason as aforesaid, the revision petition is hereby dismissed and the judgment dated 1.8.98 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratangarh as well as the order dated 4.1.96 of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, are up held. The summoned record be sent back forthwith.