Judgment :- This revision has been filed against the Judgment in C.A.No.126 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.2, Salem, which emanates from the Judgment in C.C.No.380 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Salem. The accused has been charged under Sections 279, 304(A) and 337 of IPC. 2. The short facts of the case of prosecution are that on 6. 1998 at about 5.45 p.m., when the accused was driving the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN.27-N-0664 from Mettur to Salem Town at the place of occurrence, while over taking, the lorry bearing Registration NO.TDS -2557 dashed against a stationery lorry bearing Registration No.GJ-6-V-7850 in a rash and negligent manner causing death of a stationery lorry driver and due to the impact caused simple injuries to the six persons, who were travelled in the bus. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Salem, after taking the case on file, had issued summons to the accused who is a Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus driver and on his appearance had furnished copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and since the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, who had committed under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. on appearance before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, Salem, the charges levelled against him were explained to the accused and when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty. 4. On the side of the Prosecution , P.Ws 1 to 21 were examined. Exs P1 to P21 were exhibited. 5. P.W.1 is the driver of the lorry bearing Registration NO. TDS 2557. According to him, while he was proceeding in his lorry on 6. 1998 at about 5.45p.m., from Karuppur in the Omalur- Salem road towards Salem, the accused drove the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN-27-N-0664 in a rash and negligent mannder over took him and dashed against the stationery lorry parked on the right side of the road in the opposite direction causing injuries to the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.GJ-6-V-7850 and also to the passengers travelled in the said bus and that P.W.2 Mani was the cleaner of his lorry at the time of the accident and Ex P1 is the complaint preferred by him. 5a. 5a. P.W.2 the cleaner of the lorry bearing registration No. TDS 2557 would also corroborate the evidence of P.W.1. Even according to him, the accused, the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus bearing Registration No.TN-27-N-0664 is responsible for the accident. He has identified the accused as a driver, who had driven the ill fated bus at the time of the accident. 5b. P.W.4 to P.W.8 and P.W.10 are the passengers, who have travelleld in the ill fated bus on the date of occurrence and sustained injuries in the accident. P.W.9 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who had inspected the lorry bearing Registration No.GJ-6-V-7850 and issued Ex P2 certificate stating that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defect. He has also examined the lorry bearing Registration No.TDS -2557 and issued Ex P3 certificate stating that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defect in the lorry bearing Registration No.TDS 2557. Since P.W.10 has failed to identify the accused, he was treated as a hostile witness. 5c. P.W.11 is the doctor, who had issued Ex P4 wound certificate for one Madesh. P.W.12 is the doctor, who had examined P.W.5 Sivapackiam, a passenger on the date of the accident in the ill fated bus and issued Ex P5 wound certificate. He has also examined Rani P.W.6 for the injuries, she had sustained in the accident, while travelling in the ill fated bus and issued Ex P6 copy of the accident Register. On the same day at about 8.15 p.m, he has examined P.W.7 Andal, another passenger in the ill fated bus and issued Ex P7 copy of the accident Register. The doctor has opined in Exs. P5,P6 and P7 about the injuries sustained by the above said witnesses P.W.5 to P.W.7 respectively. 5d. P.W.13 is the doctor, who had examined P.W.5 Sivapackiam and issued Ex P8 wound certificate stating that the injury sustained by P.W.5 is simple in nature. P.W.14 is the Doctor, who had examined P.W.6 Rani and issued Ex P9 copy of the accident register stating that the injury sustained by P.W.6 is simple in nature. P.W.15 is the doctor, who had examined P.W.4 Subramaniam, another passenger who had sustained injury in the ill fated bus and issued Ex P10 copy of the accident Register stating that the injuries sustained by P.W.4 are simple in nature. P.W.15 is the doctor, who had examined P.W.4 Subramaniam, another passenger who had sustained injury in the ill fated bus and issued Ex P10 copy of the accident Register stating that the injuries sustained by P.W.4 are simple in nature. He has also examined one Makudeshkumar and issued Ex P11 copy of the accident Register stating that the injuries sustained by Makudeshkumar are simple in nature. 5e. P.W.16 is the doctor, who had examined P.W.3 Dhanam and issued Ex P12 copy of the accident Register for the injuries, she had sustained in the accident, while travelling in the ill fated bus. P.W.17 is the doctor, who had conducted postmortem on the corpse of one Ashok, the driver of the stationery lorry bearing Registration No.GJ-6-V-7850, who died in the accident. Ex P13 is the post mortem certificate issued by P.W.17. The doctor has opined that due to the injury, the deceased had sustained in the neck, back bone and due to shock and hemorrhage, he died. P.W.18 is the Doctor, who had examined two children Lokesh Kumar and Jeevathinam, who have sustained injuries in the accident and issued Ex P14 and Ex P15 copy of the accident Register respectively. 5f. P.W.19 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who had inspected the ill fated bus bearing Registration No.TN-27-N-0664 and issued Ex P16 certificate stating that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defect in the bus bearing Registration No.TN-27-N-0664. 5g. P.W.20 is the then Inspector of Police, who is the successor of P.W.21, had took up investigation in this case which was registered under Crime No.1014/1998 under Sections 279,304(A) and 337 of IPC. He had examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W.21 is the then Sub Inspector of Police,who had visited the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar and rough sketch Ex P17. He would further depose that First Information report was registered by the then Head Constable Mr. Mahalingam, who is now no more. Ex P18 is the copy of the first information report. He has conducted inquest on the corpse of lorry driver Ashok, who died in the accident on 6. 1998 in the hospital. Ex.P19 is the inquest report. He has also examined the witnesses and recorded their statement. Ex P20 is the trip sheet for the ill fated bus. Ex P21 is the observation Mahazar prepared by him in the presence of the witnesses. 1998 in the hospital. Ex.P19 is the inquest report. He has also examined the witnesses and recorded their statement. Ex P20 is the trip sheet for the ill fated bus. Ex P21 is the observation Mahazar prepared by him in the presence of the witnesses. P.W.20 is the successor of P.W.21, who had took up further investigation and after completing the formalities had laid down the charge sheet against the accused under Section 279, 304(A) and 337 of IPC on 13. 1999. 6. When incriminating circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were put to the accused, he would deny his complicity with the crime. After going through the materials available on record before the trial Court by the prosecution including the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge has come to a conclusion that the offence constituted under Sections 279,304(A) and 337 of IPC(6 counts) has been made out against the accused by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the accused under Section 279 of IPC and sentenced the accused to undergo one month simple imprisonment and convicted the accused under Section 3o4(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment and convicted the accused under Section 337 of IPC (6 counts) and sentenced him to undergo one month simple imprisonment for each count and ordered that the sentence to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the accused has preferred an appeal in C.A.No.126 of 2004 before the Court of Sessions and the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, Salem, who heard the appeal had dismissed the appeal after confirming the judgment of the learned trial Judge, which necessitated the accused to prefer this appeal before this Court. 7. Now the point for determination in this revision is whether the conviction and sentence under Sections 279, 304(A) and 337 of IPC(6 counts) against the accused by the learned trial Judge which was confirmed by the first appellate Court in C.A.No.126 of 2004 is sustainable for the reasons stated in the memorandum of the revision? 8. Heard Mr. N. Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.V.R.Balasubramaniam, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and considered their respective submission. .9. The Point: .A perusal of the rough sketch Ex P17 will clearly go to show the manner in which the accident took place. 8. Heard Mr. N. Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.V.R.Balasubramaniam, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and considered their respective submission. .9. The Point: .A perusal of the rough sketch Ex P17 will clearly go to show the manner in which the accident took place. Even according to P.W.1, the lorry driver bearing Registration No.TDS 2557, the accident had occurred only, at the time, when the driver of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus bearing Registration No.TN-27-N-0664 /the accused while over taking the lorry bearing Registration No.TDS 3557, without responding to the signal given by him about a lorry which was coming in the reverse direction from Ponni Way Bridge which is situated on the left side of the road where the accident took place and that the said lorry was also coming towards his right on the southern side, the driver of the bus/the accused had driven the bus rashly and negligently in a high speed dashed against the stationery lorry bearing Registration No.GJ-6-V-7850 which was parked to his extreme right side. From Ex P17, rough sketch itself, we can infer that only due to the rash and negligent act of the accused, the accident had occurred. Ex P17 forms as Res Ipsa Loquitur which shows the manner in which the accident had occurred and also indicates under whose rash and negligent act, the accident had occurred. .10. Both the Courts below have based on the evidence of the injured passengers and also on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration NO TDS 2557, the cleaner of the said lorry bearing Registration No.TDS 2557 respectively and also on the basis of the evidence of Doctors who have examined the injured passengers P.W.4 to P.W.8 and P.W.10, have come to an unassailable conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused, the driver of the ill fated bus bearing Registration No.TN-27-N-0664. 11. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused would submit that the accused is a Government Servant and he is due to retire within one or two years and some leniency may be shown on the sentence. 11. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused would submit that the accused is a Government Servant and he is due to retire within one or two years and some leniency may be shown on the sentence. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would rely on a dictum reported in Sukhdev Singh-vs-State of Punjab (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 439). Taking into consideration the period spent in prison by the accused, the Honourable Apex Court, while confirming the conviction against the accused has reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that of a period already undergone, while enhancing the fine amount from Rs.2000/- to Rs.10,000/-with a direction that the said fine of Rs.10,000/- is to be paid to the family members of the deceased as compensation. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the same yardstick can also be applied to this case also. 12. In fine, the revision is dismissed, while confirming the conviction of the first appellate Court in C.A.No.126 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, No.2, Salem against the accused, the sentence alone is modified to that of the period already undergone and a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 279 of IPC in default to under go one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-under Section 304(A) of IPC In default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-each (six counts) under Section 337 of IPC, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment each. (The total amount of fine Rs.17,000/-) .Out of the fine amount the injured P.W3 to P.W.8 shall get Rs.1000/-each towards compensation and the Legal representatives of the deceased Ashok(the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.GJ-6-V-7850) shall be entitled to Rs.10000/-towards compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is permitted to deposit the above said fine of Rs.17,000/-before the trial Court on or before 28. 2007, failing which, the revision stands dismissed.