Judgment :- This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 21. 2005 made in C.A.No.80/2004 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29. 2004 passed by the learned District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam in C.C.No.224 of 2004. The revision petitioner/accused was convicted under Section 304(A) IPC and sentenced to undergo one year Simple imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- with default sentence of three months simple imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- On 10. 2003 at about 8.45 p.m., at the place of accident while the deceased Rajasekaran was pillion rider, and P.W.1 was riding the bicycle, the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-45-Z-2559 was driven by the revision petitioner in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, due to which the above said Rajasekaran sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot as the lorry had run over on the deceased. Subsequently based on the complaint Ex.P.1, the case was registered by the respondent police. In support of the prosecution case, 12 witnesses were examined apart from marking Exhibits P.1 to P.17. The Courts below have concurrently held that the guilt against the petitioner/accused has been proved. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the prosecution has not established the guilt against the revision petitioner that at the time of the accident the lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner by revision petitioner. The learned counsel also cited the following decisions in support of his contentions. 1. Muthu Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police 1989 L.W.(Crl)419 2. Sivalingam Vs. State 1989 L.W(Crl) 355 3. 1984 L.W(Crl)69 3. It is not in dispute that the case was registered under Section 304(A), immediately after the accident, based on Ex.P.1. According to Mr.Muniappa Raj, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), the prosecution has established the guilt against the revision petitioner beyond reasonable doubt by oral and documentary evidence. As per the finding of the courts below, it is seen that while the deceased was the pillion rider, P.W.1 was riding the bicycle and he has deposed as eye witness about the occurrence. Apart from P.W.1, the evidence of P.W.2 also supports the case of the prosecution. As per the finding of the courts below, it is seen that while the deceased was the pillion rider, P.W.1 was riding the bicycle and he has deposed as eye witness about the occurrence. Apart from P.W.1, the evidence of P.W.2 also supports the case of the prosecution. As contended by the learned Government Advocate, it is seen that P.W.6, an eyewitness has deposed that the lorry was driven at the scene of occurrence even without using horn, in a rash and negligent manner. As per the evidence available, the accident has taken place on the East-West, Peralam Karaikal Main Road, at Kollapuram. As per the sketch, Ex.P.3, prepared by the police, on the date of occurrence, it is shown that the dead body of the victim, on the Thar Road and the lorry is shown 100 meters away from the dead body only on the right hand side of the road. Ex.P.2, Observation Mahazar and rough sketch Ex.P.6 would also support the prosecution case. As contended by the learned Government Advocate that in a Criminal Revision, unless there is manifest error of law or perverse finding, leading to miscarriage of justice, this court cannot interfere with the concurrent finding of the Courts below. 4. The trial court based on the evidence has held that offence against the revision petitioner under Section 304(A) has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and appellate Court has also given its concurrent finding and thereby confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. 5. While dictating the order, learned counsel for the revision petitioner requested the court to show sympathy and reduce the sentence atleast into fine, on the ground that the revision petitioner is the bread winner of the family and also had no bad antecedents, though it has been held that the accident had taken place due to the negligent driving of the petitioner, by the Courts below, apart from the period already undergone by the revision petitioner. 6. Since the offence under Section 304(A) has been established beyond any doubt and the life of human being is so precious, I am of the view that the minimum sentence has to be imposed to meet the ends of justice. 6. Since the offence under Section 304(A) has been established beyond any doubt and the life of human being is so precious, I am of the view that the minimum sentence has to be imposed to meet the ends of justice. Though it is not in dispute that there is no bad antecedents against the revision petitioner and that he is the bread winner of the family, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice, as the offence under Section 304(A) IPC has been established, I am of the view to confirm the conviction and modify the sentence into three months simple imprisonment instead of one year Simple Imprisonment and also with a fine of Rs.10,000/- to be paid as compensation to the dependants of the deceased. The fine amount shall be deposited before the trial court, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment as imposed by the Court below. The period of sentence already undergone shall be set off. The criminal revision is disposed of with the above observation.