Honble MADAN, J.–Petitioner, who has been presently lodged in Central Jail, Bhilwara, pursuant to his conviction for the offences punishable u/ss 279, 338 and 304-A IPC by order dated 11.2.1991 of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (West), Bhilwara, in Criminal Case No.59/86, which was confirmed in appeal by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara, in Criminal Appeal No.147/96 vide order dated 21.7.98, has come up before this Court by way of revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., whereby he has assailed the impugned orders of the trial Court by which he has been convicted to undergo simple imprisonment for six months alongwith a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, simple imprisonment for three months with a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo a simple imprisonment of fifteen days for the offence under Section 338 IPC and one months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo seven days imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 IPC and all the sentences were directed to run concur- rently by the trial Court. (2). The facts giving rise to filing of this revision petition briefly stated are that F.I.R.(Ex.P.1) was lodged by one Gajraj Singh with Police Station Sadar, Bhilwara, on 18.5.86 which was registered u/ss 279, 338 and 304-A IPC against the petitioner to the effect that when he was driving the bus bearing No. RNE 7637 towards Indore from Bhilwara at about 7.30 AM near Guwardi Nala, the truck bearing No. RRY 2786 came from the opposite direction and collided with the bus resulting in accident, as a consequence of which, three male passengers, who were traveling in the bus viz Praveen 20 years, Alok Kumar 10 years and Pankaj 8 years died as a result of rash and negligent driving of the accused petitioner, who was driving the said truck. Some other passengers travelling in the said bus also received injuries, out of them one passenger namely Ratanlal received grievous injury resulting in amputation of his right hand. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested and released on bail. After completion of investigation, the challan was filed in the trial Court on 12.8.86. Some other passengers travelling in the said bus also received injuries, out of them one passenger namely Ratanlal received grievous injury resulting in amputation of his right hand. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested and released on bail. After completion of investigation, the challan was filed in the trial Court on 12.8.86. In all, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses namely PW 1 Gajraj singh, PW 2 Kish- anlal, PW 3 Pradeep Kumar, Pw 4 Bhanwarlal, PW 5 Bheru Singh, PW 6 Jagdish Prasad, PW 7 Suresh Shrimali, PW 8 Krishna Chandra, PW 9 Rameshwarlal, PW 10 Babulal, PW 11 Khavaja Hussain and PW 12 Ratanlal. Five out of twelve namely PW 2 Kishanlal, PW 3 Pradeep Kumar, PW 4 Bhanwarlal, PW 11 Khavaja Hussain and PW 12 Ratanlal were declared hostile by the learned P.P. for the State since they did not support the prosecution case. The factum of accident was well established since the truck, which met with fateful accident with the passenger bus was apprehended from the site of the accident itself and the rash and negligent manner in which the petitioner happened to be driving the truck was also well established from the statement of the prosecution witnesses, who were examined in evidence before the trial Court. The FIR (Ex.P.2) was lodged on the same day i.e. 18.5.86 by Gajraj Singh, driver of the said bus, with Police Station Sadar, Bhilwara. The site plan is (Ex.P.3), prepared by the investigating Officer on the day of occurrence itself i.e. 18.5.86 and proved by him during the evidence. Immediately after the accident, the Investigating Officer got admitted in Hospital three passengers namely Praveen 20 yrs., Alok Kumar 10 yrs., and Pankaj 8 yrs., who were declared dead in the Hospital by the doctor, who conducted their post mortem vide Ex.P.18 to 20. The Medical Jurist, M.G. Hospital, Bhilwara, has opined in the post mortem reports of the deceased dt.18.5.86 that the cause of death of the was deceased shock due to laceration of brain tissues and severe haemorrhage due to fracture of skull bones. Thereafter, the challan was filed against the accused on 12.8.86 in the Court of lear- ned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (West), Bhilwara, on the basis of which trial started against the accused. The prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses. Thereafter, the challan was filed against the accused on 12.8.86 in the Court of lear- ned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (West), Bhilwara, on the basis of which trial started against the accused. The prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution relied upon the FIR (Ex.P.1), site plan (Ex.P.3), Panchayat namas (EX.P.4 to 6), the injury report of injured passenger Ratan Lal (Ex.P.17) and the post mortem reports of the deceased (Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.20). (3). PW 1 Gajraj Singh, who lodged the FIR (Ex.P.1), with the Police is the driver of Rajasthan Roadways and was driving the said bus, which met with the fateful accident with the aforesaid truck being driven by the accused petitioner. He was plying the said bus from Bhilwara to Indore. He left Bhilwara for Indore at 7 AM. after he had reached near Guwardi Nala on 18.5.86 at about 7.20 AM, the said truck coming from the opposite direction collided against the bus as the accused petitioner was driving the truck in a very rash and negligent manner with the result that one of the wheels of the bus got down off the road. Consequently, the passengers who were travelling in the bus received severe injuries. It has further been deposed by him that two vehicles can easily cross each other on the highway on which the accident took place. He further stated that there was no other vehicle passing on the high way at that point of time. He has further deposed that he turned his vehicle and chased the truck and succeeded in apprehending the truck driver i.e. accused petitioner Laxman Singh. Thereafter, he took the injured and got them admitted in the nearest Hospital and then lodged FIR with the Police vide (Ex.P.1), on which he also identified his signatures at point A to B. In cross examination, he has stated that he was driving the bus at a speed of about 50 Kms. per hour. He chased and apprehended the truck after covering a distance of at least three kms. from the place of the accident. per hour. He chased and apprehended the truck after covering a distance of at least three kms. from the place of the accident. The deposition of PW-1 is fully corroborated by the statements of witnesses namely PW 7 Suresh Shrimali, PW9 Rameshwarlal, PW10 Babulal and Ratanlal PW 12 in all material particulars as well as the Investigation Officer Krishna Chand who have fully supported the prosecution case and have stated that accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the truck driver, who was driving the truck so rashly and negligently at that point of time. (4). The statement of the accused petitioner was recorded u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. where in he denied the prosecution case and claimed trial. Since the accident was fully established from the ocular testimony of the witnesses as well as documentary evidence on the record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, petitioner preferred appeal before the Sessions Court, Bhilwara, which was heard and finally decided by the Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara. The said appellate Court vide its judgment dated 21.7.98 upheld the conviction of the petitioner for the offences as aforesaid and confirmed the order of the trial Court dt.11.2.91. The petitioner being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the trial court as well as the appellate Court, has come up before this Court by way of revision petition wherein he has assailed the aforesaid orders of th Courts below on the grounds inter alia that the impugned judgments are contrary to facts and circumstances on record and deserve to be set aside. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended at bar that out of twelve witnesses, who were examined by the prosecution, five witnesses namely PW 2 Kishanlal, PW 3 Pradeep Kumar, PW 4 Bhanwarlal, PW 11 Khvaja Hussain and PW 12 Ratanlal were declared hostile and, as such, their statements should not have been relied upon by the Courts below and consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner deserve to be quashed and set aside. He further stated that the finding of both the Courts below are contrary to the material on record because the eviden- ce of material witnesses has not been discussed and appreciated in true perspective and moreso, since five witnesses had turned hostile by not supporting the prosecution case, their evidence should not have been relied upon. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner could not successfully assail the material aspect of the case that three passengers, who were travelling in the said bus against which the petitioner had dashed his truck, had died as a result of the accident and some of the passengers received severe injuries including one passenger namely Ratanlal, who had received severe injury resulting in amputation of his hand. He could not dispute further the fact that the accused petitioner was driving his vehicle so rashly and negligently and the accident was direct result of his rash and negligent act in driving the truck, which collided with the said bus coming from the opposite direction and hence, there was a direct nexus between the death of the passengers and the negligent act of the accused. (5). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also examined the statements of the witnesses as well as the relevant documents on the record. (6). 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 negligence 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 occurred resulting in death of three passengers apart from severe injuries to other passengers, who were travelling in the fateful bus, 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 occurred resulting in death of three passengers apart from severe injuries to other passengers, who were travelling in the fateful bus, was a direct result of the rash and negligent driving of the erring vehicle by the petitioner. The only mitigating cir- cumstance is that it is a case of protracted trial of the accused since the prosecution filed a chargesheet on 12.8.86 and the trial ended up in conviction and sentence of the petitioner as aforesaid on 11.2.91, which was confirmed in appeal by the appellate court on 21.7.98. The maximum sentence, which is awarded to an accused causing death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amoun- ting 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 six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment. For the offence u/s 338 IPC, he has been awarded simple imprisonment for three months with a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo a simple imprisonment of fifteen days and one months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo seven days imprisonment for the offence u/s 279 IPC, in my view, all the provisions of Ss.279, 338 and 304-A IPC are fully satisfied 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, which is fully established on the basis of the evidence on record. (7). 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 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 negligent 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 poten- tial 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 driving offences. Since the rash and negligent driving had resulted in fatal accident, the Apex Court refused to interfere with the maximum sentence of two yrs 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 circumstances of driving are harsh, no compensation should be shown. In my view, the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex court is fully attracted to this case. The doctrine of ``Res Ipse Loquitor i.e. the incident speaks for itself is also fully attracted this Case. Even on the question of mitigating circumstance, I find no room for taking lenient view of the matter since the culpable negligence of the petitioner has been well established on the basis of the evidence on record. I find no merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner for interfering with the judgments rendered by the Courts below. (8). On the question of delay in trial of the accused, I would like to observe that in such matters where an accident of a vehicle has resulted in fatal injuries to the victims, the trial should be expedited since otherwise the delay may prove fatal to the prosecution case. (9). As a result of the above discussion, the revision petition stands dismissed and the order dated 11.2.1991 of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate(West), Bhilwara, as also the judgment dt.21.7.98 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara, are hereby upheld. The record of the case be sent back forthwith.