JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—Raj Kumar petitioner herein stands convicted by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalhousie, District Chamba in criminal case No. 85-1/90 for the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 304-A and simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. On appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, his conviction and sentence so imposed by the trial Magistrate stand affirmed by judgment dated 4.12.1998. 3. The petitioner by way of this revision petition has challenged the correctness and validity of his conviction and sentence imposed on him by the two Courts below. 4. The prosecution case briefly stated was that on 16.6.1990, one Shri Mast Ram (PW-7) was travelling in bus bearing registration No. HIC-34 belonging to Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) alongwith his wife and four children from Surgani to Pathankot. On the way, at Tunu Hatti, bus No. PJG-4075 belonging to Punjab Roadways was coming from the opposite direction being driven by the petitioner. It was alleged that due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the petitioner, the vehicle struck against the Himachal Road Transport Corporation Bus due to which Master Manoj Kumar and Kumari Rajeshwari, son and daughter of Shri Mast Ram sustained head injuries resulting their deaths on the spot. The accident was reported to the police by Mast Ram whose statement was recorded by the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. marked Exbt. PW-7/A. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal first information report came to be registered at Police Station, Dalhousie on the same day at about 3.15 p.m. whereas the accident took place at about 12.45 noon. Head Constable Kishore Kumar (PW- 8) visited the spot immediately and prepared spot map Exbt. PW-8/A and summoned Sarwan Singh (PW-3) photographer who clicked the photographs of both the vehicles and the bodies of the deceased Manoj Kumar and Kumari Rajeshwari lying on the seat inside the Himachal Road Transport Corporation Bus. Photographs negatives Exbts. PW-3/H to PW-3/O were placed an record. PW-8/A and summoned Sarwan Singh (PW-3) photographer who clicked the photographs of both the vehicles and the bodies of the deceased Manoj Kumar and Kumari Rajeshwari lying on the seat inside the Himachal Road Transport Corporation Bus. Photographs negatives Exbts. PW-3/H to PW-3/O were placed an record. During recording of the statements of the material witnesses by PW Kishore Kumar, it was found that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the petitioner in which heads of both the victims were crushed resulting their deaths on the spot. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code before the trial Magistrate. 5. The trial Magistrate found prirna facie case against the petitioner and charge sheeted him for the aforesaid offence. Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case against the petitioner. PW-1 Bichiter Singh at the relevant time was posted as Inspector of Punjab Roadways; PW-2 Vijay Kumar a tea vendor who reached at the scene of occurrence after hearing some noise; PW-3 Sarwan Singh photographer; PW-4 Sukhbinder Singh Conductor of bus No. PJG-4075,PW-5 Dr. Madhoo Sood who conducted post mortem on the bodies of Master Manoj Kumar and Kumari Rajeshwari ; PW-6 Jaswant Singh who mechanically examined the vehicle of the petitioner after the accident; PW-7 Mast Ram father of the unfortunate children; PW-8 Kishore Kumar head constable who conducted the investigation in the present case and PW-9 Ram Pal Sharma, Junior Engineer (Mechanical) H.P.P.W.D. Banikhet Sub-Division. 6. The statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he has made simple denial of the prosecution case. In defence, petitioner examined one Mukhtiar Singh DW-1 who allegedly was travelling in the bus being driven by the petitioner on the relevant day. 7. The trial Magistrate on appraisal of both oral and documentary evidence on record found the petitioner guilty of offence charged for and accordingly convicted him on 26.11.1994 and instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, he was extended the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 7. The trial Magistrate on appraisal of both oral and documentary evidence on record found the petitioner guilty of offence charged for and accordingly convicted him on 26.11.1994 and instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, he was extended the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Subsequently, the State of Himachal Pradesh had filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge against the order of the trial Magistrate giving the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge set-aside the order of the trial Magistrate and remanded back the case for passing sentence against the petitioner. Thereafter, on 30.8.1996, the trial Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to suffer imprisonment and to pay fine mentioned hereinabove. 8. Being aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge which came to be dismissed and the judgment and order of the trial Magistrate was upheld. Now the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revision petition. 9. I have heard Mr. C.B. Barowalia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Assistant Advocate General. 10. It is vehemently contended by Mr. Barowalia that both the Courts below have grossly erred in holding the petitioner guilty of offence in the absence of no evidence led by the prosecution to prove that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel, both the Courts below have wrongly appreciated the entire evidence on record adduced by the prosecution and on proper scrutiny of the evidence, it stands clearly proved that it was the driver of Himachal Road Transport Corporation who was negligent in driving his vehicle in an excessive speed and further that the defence of the petitioner that he was not negligent has not been properly appreciated, more specifically the evidence of DW- 1 Mukhtiar Singh who happened to be an eye-witness of the accident. Learned Counsel also contended that it has come in the evidence of PW Sukhbinder Singh Conductor of bus No. PJG-4075 that the accident had taken place due to the rash andnegligent driving of Himachal Road Transport Corporation bus by its driver and both the Courts below have not considered and appreciated the evidence of PW Sukhbinder Singh in its right perspective and, therefore, the conviction of the petitioner is not sustainable for the lack of cogent and convincing evidence. 11. Per contra, the learned Assistant Advocate General has sought to support the findings and reasonings recorded by both the Courts below holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. It is also contended by the learned Assistant Advocate General that this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction will not reappreciate and re-assess the entire evidence on record once the evidence has been appreciated and relied upon by the Courts below, unless the reasonings recorded by the Courts are found grossly erroneous or the Courts have committed jurisdictional error in deciding the case. 12. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel on both sides. 13. It is not in dispute that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court has to be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is (a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a munifest error on the point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. It is equally settled law that the jurisdiction of this Court in a criminal revision application is squarely restricted and it cannot imbark upon re-appraisal of the evidence. In Dull Chand v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1975 SC 1960), their Lordships while dealing with the case of an accused who invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court in criminal revision application have held as under:— "The question whether the accused was guilty of negligence in driving the bus and death of the deceased was caused due to negligent driving is a question of fact which depends for its determination on appreciation of the evidence. Where the Magistrate, and the Additional Sessions Judge arrived on assessment of the evidence at a concurrent finding of fact that the death of the deceased was caused by negligent driving of bus by the accused and the High Court even though justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence reviewed the same in order to justify itself that there was evidence in support of the finding and that the finding was not perverse, came to the conclusion that the evidence established the death of the deceased was caused by the negligent driving of the bus by the accused, the Supreme Court on an appeal under Article 136 refused to interfere.".... (Para 5) 14. In State ofOrissa v. Nakula Sahu and others (AIR 1979 SC 663), it has been held that where neither the trial Court nor the Sessions Judge committed any error of fact or law in arriving at their conclusions and the High Court upset their concurrent findings in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction and acquitted the accused, the order of acquittal passed by the High Court was found not justified. 15. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Math Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 452, while dealing the nature and scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, it has been held that in its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In othr words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. 16. 16. In the light of the settled position of law of the Apex Court, I am of the view that the Courts below have rightly held the petitioner guilty of the offence and the findings recorded by both the Courts are based on sound appreciation of the entire evidence on record adduced by the parties. Though this Court is not obliged to re-appraise and re-assess the evidence again in criminal revision application about the fact whether the petitioner was rash or negligent in driving the vehicle resulting the deaths of the two children by crushing their heads who were travelling in HRTC bus alongwith their parents, yet to appreciate the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I may refer to some relevant statements of the material witnesses and the documents placed on record. The most important witness is PW Mast Ram who has categorically stated that when he was travelling in HRTC bus on 16.6.1990 alongwith his wife and two sons namely Manoj Kumar and Rajesh Kumar and two daughters Rajeshwari and Sunita Devi from Surgani to Pathankdt, bus of Punjab Roadways came from the opposite direction being driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner struck at the side of the driver of the HRTC bus and then proceeded ahead and crushed the heads of his two children Manoj Kumar and Rajeshwari Devi who were sitting at Seats No. 31 and 36 respectively resulting their death inside the bus itself. He deposed that the petitioner was driving the vehicle on the wrong side of the road and the width of the road at the site of the accident was about 36 feet. He testified his statement having been made by him to the police recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. marked Exbt. PW-7/A. From the tenor and trend of the cross-examination of this witness, it appears that the defence of the petitioner was that both the children had opened the glasses of the windows of the bus and taken out their heads through the windows on account of which their heads struck against the bus being driven by the petitioner. PW-7/A. From the tenor and trend of the cross-examination of this witness, it appears that the defence of the petitioner was that both the children had opened the glasses of the windows of the bus and taken out their heads through the windows on account of which their heads struck against the bus being driven by the petitioner. It was also the defence of the petitioner that he was driving his vehicle while proceeding in ascending direction whereas the bus being driven by the driver of HRTC was coming in descending direction and as such, it was not his fault and it was the fault of the driver of HRTC. The suggestion of the petitioner was categorically denied by PW Mast Ram in his cross-examination. It may be pertinent to mention here that the defence of the petitioner was wholly indifferent and inconsistent. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he has even denied the driving of his vehicle No, PJG-4075 coming from Pathankot to Chamba on the relevant day. His defence was simple denial. From the evidence on record, it stands proved that the vehicle of the petitioner involved in the accident was impounded by the Investigating Officer on the spot and the driving licence of the petitioner Exbt. PW-l/A and the registration certificate of his vehicle Exbt. PW-l/B were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer immediately after the accident, in the presence of PW Bachiter Singh who was at the relevant time Inspector of Punjab Roadways, Pathankot Depot. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the oral testimony of PW Sukhbinder Singh conductor of the bus which was being driven by the petitioner, It has come in evidence of PW Sukhbinder Singh that the bus of HRTC was being driven in excessive speed by its driver and the accident was as a result of the rash and negligent driving of HRTC bus. The evidence of this witness catnnot be believed for the reason that he was the conductor of the bus being driven by the petitioner and an interested witness to see that his driver should not be held guilty of the offence. Deposition of this witness is absolutely contradictory and inconsistent with the deposition of DW Mukhtiar Singh on whose testimony much reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Deposition of this witness is absolutely contradictory and inconsistent with the deposition of DW Mukhtiar Singh on whose testimony much reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the statement of PW Sukhbinder Singh, it has come that both the buses had tried to cross each other when their bodies struck each other, whereas DW Mukhtiar Singh has stated that the bodies of both the vehicles were not touching each other when the accident had taken place. None of these two witnesses have stated that both the children who lost their lives in the accident had taken out their heads out of the windows of the HRTC bus and it was due to that reason that their heads were crushed. The defence of the petitioner was rigthly found by both the Courts below not plausible. On appraisal of the site plan Exbt. PW 8/A it stands clearly proved that the bus being driven by the petitioner was on its extreme right side leaving 9 feet 10 inches metalled road and 12 feet unmettaled road on its left side whereas the bus of the HRTC was coming on its extreme left side. Similar is the position reflected in photographs marked Exbts. PW-3/I and PW-3/J. The petitioner has not challenged the testimony of PW Kishore Kumar Investigating Officer who prepared the site plan. Not a single suggestion was put to the Investigating Officer that the site plan was not properly prepared by him and the width of the road reflected in the site plan has been wrongly mentioned therein. Another defence was taken by the petitioner while cross-examining the Investigating Officer i.e. that the accident had taken place because of mechanical defect, of the vehicle of the petitioner and that suggestion has been categorically denied by the Investigating Officer. From the bare perusal of the photographs Exbt. PW-3/I and Exbt. PW-3/J, it is clear that the bus of HRTC was being driven by its driver on the extreme left side when it was on ascending direction whereas the bus of the petitioner was going uphill side and it was being driven by the petitioner on its extreme right side closely touching the entire right side body with the right side body of the HRTC bus and on its left side the road was very wide and open. The documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution will clearly prove that it was the petitioner who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road causing the accident resulting crushing of the heads of two innocent children who consequently died on the spot due to the accident. The petitioner has not led any evidence to prove that the photographs taken by PW Sarwan Singh do not depict the correct position of the spot. It has been established on record that the deceased children were occupying seats No. 31 and 36 and these seats were towards the window on the right side 6J the HRTC bus. Further, the mechnical examination of the bus of the petitioner was done by the mechanic Ripu Daman Singh Assistant Foreman Mechanic, Banikhet who could not be examined by the prosecution because he had expired in 1991, but his mechanical report Exbt. PW-9/A was produced by PW Ram Pal Junior Engineer, Mechanical Sub-Division, Banikhet under whom the deceased Ripu Daman Singh was working. From the report, it was found by both the Courts below that there was no mechanical defect in the bus of the petitioner and the plea of the petitioner that the accident had taken place because of the mechanical defect is therefore, absolutely false and incorrect. The statement made by DW Mukhtiar Singh is not in conformity with the defence of the petitioner and this witness has tried to improve the defence of the petitioner which was never taken by him in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or the suggestion put to the prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination. The defence witness appears to be an interested witness and his testimony cannot be accepted. In his statement, the witness at one stage has categorically stated that the petitioner did not know anything about him nor about his business, but later on he has admitted in his cross-examination that the petitioner after the accident met him in Subji Mandi, Pathankot when he gave him his address of his business there. In his statement, the witness at one stage has categorically stated that the petitioner did not know anything about him nor about his business, but later on he has admitted in his cross-examination that the petitioner after the accident met him in Subji Mandi, Pathankot when he gave him his address of his business there. Both the Courts below have meticulously examined the entire evidence on record and on appraisal of the said evidence, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and as held by the Apex Court, the findings of both the Courts below that the petitioner was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle are the findings of fact which shall not be interferred with by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. For the above-stated reasons, I find no infirmity in the judgment and order of the learned trial Magistrate holding the petitioner gtailty of the offence charged for and the findings so recorded have been affirmed by the Sessions Judge in the appeal of the petitioner. 17. Mr. C.B. Barowalia, learned Counsel for the petitioner has lastly contended that looking to the age and the fact that the petitioner has to maintain his big family being the sole bread earner, the petitioner shall be either extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act or he may be let by imposition of fine only. I am afraid to accept this submission of the learned Counsel for the reasons that in the manner in which the petitioner was driving his vehicle being a public servant and crushing the heads of the two minor innocent children resulting their deaths on the spot, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency, more especially when he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is by now settled by the Supreme Court that in accidental deaths in which the driver of the offending vehicle is found grossly rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, the Court should not lightly award the sentence to such an accused who is responsible for taking the precious life of a citizen. In this view of the matter, no leniency can be shown to the petitioner in awarding the sentence. 18. The learned Counsel on either side has not made any other submission. 19. Consequently, the revision petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. In this view of the matter, no leniency can be shown to the petitioner in awarding the sentence. 18. The learned Counsel on either side has not made any other submission. 19. Consequently, the revision petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is on bail and his bail bonds are cancelled. The petitioner shall surrender before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalhousie who shall commit him to prison to serve out the sentences awarded to him. In the event of failure of the petitioner to surrender, the trial Magistrate shall procure his presence by issue of non-bailable warrants and then to commit him to prison, as aforesaid. Revision dismissed. -