JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard learned P.P. 2. The Petitioner before us is a driver of a bus and he was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia in GR Case No. 834 of 92 on the charge that on 8.6.1992, the Petitioner drove a bus bearing registration No. AMB 2487 in the National High Way No. 37 and knocked down a school going boy Shankar Barhoi aged about 7 years, as a result of which, the said boy died at the spot. 3. The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. N. Sonowal who found as follows: Injuries-Crushed lacerated wound 32 x 12 cm size from the left knee to ankle. Skin muscles vessels nerves and libia fibula are crushed. Closed fracture of the right femur at the level of lower one-third. Left ankle joint is fractured and dislocated. Cranium and Spinal Canal.-Scalp, skull vertebrae, membrane are healthy. Brain was pale. Spinal cord was healthy. Thorax-Thorasic walls, ribs, cartilages, pleurae, larynx are healthy. Both lungs are pale. Pericuardium was healthy. Both verticles of the heart is empty. Left leg vessels are crushed. 4. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of crushed injuries sustained from running over by motor vehicle. 5. There is oral as well as medical evidence on record as regards the death of the deceased as a result of vehicle accident and medical evidence has not been challenged. 6. As regards the incident, there are two eye-witnesses, namely Lakhmiram Barhoi (P.W.2) and Tulsiram Barhoi (P.W.6). They have deposed that on the relevant day at about 12.30 p.m. the accused drove a bus at a high speed and knocked down the deceased who came out from school and who was on the side of National Highway. 7. In this case, the death of the deceased by a vehicular accident, at the relevant time, has not been disputed, on the contrary, the accused in his statement has admitted the driving of the vehicle. So far P.W.6 is concerned there was no cross-examination and his evidence has not been challenged at all. So far P.W.2 is concerned, there is no meaningful cross-examination and the evidence remain intact. So far P.W.6 is concerned there was no cross-examination and his evidence has not been challenged at all. So far P.W.2 is concerned, there is no meaningful cross-examination and the evidence remain intact. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to the application of the maxim "res ipse loquitar" by the trial Court and submits that in a criminal trial, the above principle cannot be applied. In view of the direct testimony of the two eye-witnesses, we find that the application of the said maxim is no way relevant as there is eye-witnesses who have deposed about driving of the vehicle rashly and there is no dispute that the running over by the bus was the direct cause for death of the deceased. The accused had been convicted under Section 279, IPC as well as under Section 304(A) IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, further imprisonment for one month, by the trial Court. 8. The Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 29(A) of 1996 before the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia who affirmed the order of conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. 9. In view of the evidence on record, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has established the charge against the accused under Section 279/304 (A), IPC. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the accused person is now about 50 years old and as such the sentence may be set aside and fine may be enhanced. The learned Counsel has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Prakash Agarwal v. State of M.P. 1990 (Supp.) SCC 764. 10. We have perused the above decision and we find that the accused was granted relief in that particular case in view of the fact that long 18 years have passed in disposing of the case. The law regarding substitution of sentence for offence under Section 304A, IPC did not find favour with the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Krishna, AIR 1987 SC 861 , the Apex Court held: Consideration of undue sympathy in such cases will not only lead to miscarriage of justice but will also undermine the confidence of the public in the efficiency of the criminal judicial system. It need be hardly pointed out that the imposition of a sentence of the fine of Rs. 250/- on the driver of a motor vehicle for an offence under Section 304A, IPC and that too without any extenuating or mitigating circumstance is bound to shock the conscience of any one and will unmistakably leave the impression that the trial was a mockery of justice. Held: The sentence is enhanced to six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/. 11. In the present case, the accused has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for three months on each count and we find that the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. This revision stands disposed of. 12. Send down the record to the S.D.J.M. Tinsukia. Petitioner is directed to serve out the sentences.