Judgment MOHD. YAMIN, J. ( 1 ) CHUNNI Lal-petitioner was convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 and 338, IPC as follows by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Udaipur :-U/s. 304-A,ipc one years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment. u/s. 279 IPC six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to undergo one months simple imprisonment. u/s. 337 IPC six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to undergo one months simple imprisonment. u/s. 338 IPC six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to undergo one months simple imprisonment. ( 2 ) ALL the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He preferred appeal which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur and conviction and sentences were maintained vide judgment dated 13-11-1991. He has then preferred this revision before this Court. ( 3 ) NOBODY appeared on behalf of the petitioner when the case was taken up for hearing on 11-2-2000 despite many calls. However, I heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. ( 4 ) BRIEFLY stated, Chunnilal was the driver of truck No. RJY-4913 on 7-3-1975. He was coming from Kherwara and was loaded with soapstone. Some persons sat in the truck in village Baran. It is alleged that the petitioner was driving the truck rashly and negligently on Udaipur-Dungarpur Road. It was further alleged that the truck overturned in front of T. D. outpost on the main road with the result that Ratna, Kamla, Heera and Udaji died while Chunni Lal, Nand Kishore, Smt. Radhu Bai, Megh Singh and Heerji suffered injuries. Since the occurrence took place in front of the police outpost, it was Ranjeet Singh who informed the police station Nai where FIR No. 32/75 was registered. Devi Singh, Head Constable had already started investigation at the site whom investigation was handed over by the Station House Officer concerned. Site was inspected, post-mortem of the bodies of deceased persons were performed and after investigation challan was submitted. When accusation was read over to the petitioner he admitted that he was driving the truck but denied his guilt. Devi Singh, Head Constable had already started investigation at the site whom investigation was handed over by the Station House Officer concerned. Site was inspected, post-mortem of the bodies of deceased persons were performed and after investigation challan was submitted. When accusation was read over to the petitioner he admitted that he was driving the truck but denied his guilt. According to him when he was driving the truck, suddenly a young boy came in front of the vehicle and he used brakes with the result that the truck overturned. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses in support of its case. Accused-petitioner was examined under Section 313, Cr. P. C. and produced a witness in defence. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated above. ( 5 ) IT has been tried to canvass in the revision petition that conviction passed against the petitioner was wrong as it is based on misreading of evidence. It is PW-7 Radhi who stated that another truck driver had come who had some quarrel with the petitioner and that that truck driver has not been examined before the Court below and consequently the finding has been given on surmises and conjectures. It has also been canvassed that the petitioner could not have driven the vehicle with great speed as the place where occurrence took place is said to be near the police outpost, and the truck ashed against the shop of Dal Chand. ( 6 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court as well as appellate Court. ( 7 ) THE settled position of law as held in State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 1 JT (SC) 456 : (1999 Cri LJ 1443) is that the evidence once appreciated by trial Court and reappreciated by appellate Court cannot be further appreciated in revision by the High Court unless there is some glaring feature pointing that injustice has been done to accused. However, I have again read the evidence recorded and appreciated by the trial Court and further reappreciated by the appellate Court. ( 8 ) OF course PW-7 Radhi stated that she was sitting in the body of truck and a truck followed it; that the other truck driver quarrelled with the petitioner. Thereafter the truck in question which was being driven by the petitioner went ahead and another truck followed it. ( 8 ) OF course PW-7 Radhi stated that she was sitting in the body of truck and a truck followed it; that the other truck driver quarrelled with the petitioner. Thereafter the truck in question which was being driven by the petitioner went ahead and another truck followed it. She wanted to say that both the trucks were racing in competition with the result the petitioner drove its truck with a very high speed and ultimately overturned at Tidi. She fell down and her relations including her daughter died at the spot. She has reiterated that both the truck drivers were driving the trucks in competition. From her evidence it appears that the place where accident took place was on a higher pedestal and thus the truck driven by the petitioner was climbing. If it was so then the truck could not have gone with a very high speed. Other witness PW-1 Kalu Lal admitted that the road was steep and it is also admitted by PW-2 Noor Mohd. that the road was about 50 feet high at the place where accident took place. Because of this steepness the truck might not have gained a very high speed. But it was definitely being driven carelessly and rashly by the petitioner. PW-12 Bahadur Singh was the witness who saw the truck coming and has stated that the speed of the truck was normal. Nothing can be gathered from such statements about the speed of the truck. But it can definitely be said that it was driven by the petitioner negligently. ( 9 ) THE case of the accused-petitioner in his defence at the stage of Section 313, Cr. P. C. was that there was a turn and a boy suddenly came before the truck. He tried to save him and when he used brakes the truck lost its balance and overturned. This defence was never put to any witness of the prosecution, even to PW-12 Bahadur Singh who was sitting outside the gate of the outpost and saw the truck coming. DW-1 Nirbhay Singh who was travelling in the truck driven by the petitioner has been produced on behalf of the defence. He has brought a new theory by saying that the road was under repair and the truck driven by the petitioner was going with a very slow speed when a boy came in front of the truck. DW-1 Nirbhay Singh who was travelling in the truck driven by the petitioner has been produced on behalf of the defence. He has brought a new theory by saying that the road was under repair and the truck driven by the petitioner was going with a very slow speed when a boy came in front of the truck. This theory of road being under repair has come for the first time when DW-1 Nirbhay Singh appeared as a witness. The theory put by this witness appears to be an afterthought and a device to save the petitioner. All said and done the defence of the accused-petitioner is an afterthought and cannot be accepted. ( 10 ) NEXT point canvassed in the petition is that he petitioner should have been given benefit of probation and that such a long period has passed after the incident has taken place, no useful purpose will be served to send the petitioner back to the jail and as such he may be granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. ( 11 ) RAJASTHAN High Court in a latest judgment rendered in Kuldeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 7-2-2000, considered this point and after taking into consideration Supreme Court judgment reported in AIR 1987 SC 861 : (1987 Cri LJ 776), State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju, and Amarlal v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 Rajasthan Vidhi Patrika, page 317 and other such Cr. Revision No. 195/99, Safliya alias Safel Mohd. v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 17-5-1999 and Talab Khan v. State of Rajasthan, SB Cr. Revision Petition No. 102/99, decided on 17-5-1999, held that these cases are to be taken seriously when the Supreme Court in Krishnas case (supra) sentence of only Rs. 250/- passed against such an accused has increased to six months jail imprisonment. The petitioner has been sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-A, IPC with a fine of Rs. 250/- and for lesser sentences under different sections and has remained in custody only for a short period of only 12 days, does not deserve any leniency in this case on account of the fact that the incident had taken place some time in the year 1975. It is a case in which three persons lost their lives and five persons suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. It is a case in which three persons lost their lives and five persons suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. No leniency should be shown to such a petitioner only on account of delay of the disposal of the case. The petitioner has to undergo the penance of the crime he has committed. ( 12 ) CONSEQUENTLY, there is no force in this revision petition. It is hereby dismissed. The petitioner shall surrender before the trial Court which will take him in custody and send him to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. .