JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 10.05.2007, passed, in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2006, by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta, dismissing the appeal of the accused-Petitioner and upholding thereby the judgment and order, dated 13.09.2006, passed, in GR Case No. 308/1997, by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Barpeta, whereby the accused-Petitioner stands convicted under Section 279 and Section 304A of the IPC and sentenced to suffer, for his conviction under Section 304A IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months and to undergo, for his conviction under Section 279 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two months, both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently. 2. I have heard Mr P.K. Talukdar, learned Counsel for the accused-Petitioner, and Mr. K. Munir, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. The case of the prosecution may, in brief, be described thus: On 17.03.1997, at about 7 a.m., while Hazarat Ali (since deceased) was standing by the side of Blacktop of the PWD road, in front of Daboliapara High School, a Mini Truck, bearing Registration No. AS-15-0089, came driven rashly by accused Aynal Haque, knocked down Hazarat Ali, who sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries at Barpeta Civil Hospital. An Ejahar having been lodged, in this regard, by Abdul Hamid, a nephew of the said deceased, a case was registered, under Sections 279/304A IPC, against the accused-Petitioner. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet accordingly against the accused-Petitioner. 4. The accused-Petitioner pleaded not guilty, when the substance of accusations made under Sections 279 and 304A IPC were read over and explained to him at the trial. The prosecution examined five witnesses in support of their case. The accused-Petitioner was, then, examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. While the defence did not dispute the fact that Aynal Haque met with the death as a result of the injuries sustained by him on being knocked down by the said truck driven by the accused-Petitioner, the defence did assert that the said death was accidental inasmuch as the said deceased ran from one side of the road to the other carrying a bundle of cucumber on his head and while attempting to cross the road, dashed against the body of the said truck, which was driver by the accused. The accident, thus, occurred due to the fault of the deceased and not because of any rash and/or negligent driving of the said vehicle by the accused-Petitioner. In support of its case, the defence did not, however, adduce any evidence. 5. Having found the accused-Petitioner guilty of the offences aforementioned, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentences against him as mentioned hereinabove. As the appeal preferred by the accused-Petitioner has been dismissed with direction to him to surrender, within 20 days, to serve out the sentences of imprisonment passed against him, the accused-Petitioner is, now, before this Court with the help of the present revision petition. 6. Coming to fee merit of this revision, what needs to be noted is that the informant, in the present case, namely, P.W. 4 was, admittedly, not an eye-witness. Those, who claim to be present near the place, of occurrence at the time, when the occurrence took place, are P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. The evidence of P.W. 1 is that on the day of the occurrence, at about 7 p.m., while he was standing on the road, near Daboliapara High School, for going to Barpeta, he saw Hazarat Ali coming to the western side of the road having a bag full of cucumber on his head and while Hazarat Ali was putting down the bag of cucumber on the road, the truck, in question, came from the direction of Barpeta, hit Hazarat Ali and threw him away. P.W. 1 asserts that at the time of accident, Hazarat Ali was standing on the katcha portion of the PWD road and after knocking down Hazarat Ali, the truck sped away towards Howly side. It is in the evidence of P.W. 1 that Hazarat Ali was severely injured and he (P.W. 1) and Samsul (P.W. 3) took injured Hazrat Ali to Barpeta Civil Hospital, where Hazarat Ali succumbed to his injuries. 7. Though P.W. 1 was put to cross-examined, at length, by the defence, nothing is seen to have been elicited from his cross-examination to show that what he has deposed is untrue or false. In fact, in his cross-examination, P.W. 1 has clarified that he was standing on the western side of the road at a distance of about 10/12 cubits from the place of occurrence. In fact, in his cross-examination, P.W. 1 has clarified that he was standing on the western side of the road at a distance of about 10/12 cubits from the place of occurrence. P.W. 1 has also clarified, in his evidence, that Hazarat Ali had crossed the road after a bus had already passed the road and that after hazarat Ali had already crossed the road and come to the western side of the road, the offending truck hit him. 8. Broadly, in time, with the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 (Abbu Bakkar) has deposed that on the day of occurrence, while he was standing on the western side of PWD road near Daboliapara High School, Hazarat Ali crossed the road and came to the western side of the road having a bag full of cucumber on his head. Further describing the occurrence, P.W. 2 has deposed that while Hazarat Ali was putting down the bag from his head, the offending truck came from Barpeta side, knocked Hazarat Ali and after knocking him down, the truck sped away. It is in the evidence of P.W. 2 that his father, Samsul (P.W. 3) and Nabibar (P.W. 1), then, took the injured to Barpeta Civil Hospital and after about an hour, the injured succumbed to his injuries. In his evidence, P.W. 2 has clarified that the accident took place on the katcha portion of the PWD road. 9. Even from the cross-examination of P.W. 2, the defence could elicit nothing to show that this witness's evidence cannot be believed. Far from this, this witness, clarified in his cross-examination by the defence, that he was standing near the road for going to Barpeta Road and Hazarat Ali arrived there, when he (P.W. 2) was present on the road. P.W. 2 has further clarified that Hazarat Ali was standing at a distance of about 8/10 cubits from him on the western side of the occurrence. 10. While cross-examining the P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, though the defence made some suggestions to show that there were contradictions between the previous statements made by these witnesses to the police and their evidence in the Court, but none of the contradictions were proved, when the Investigating Officer was under cross-examination by the defence. Thus, the evidence given by P.Ws. 1 and 2 remained unshaken in material particulars. 11. It is, now, pointed out by Mr. Thus, the evidence given by P.Ws. 1 and 2 remained unshaken in material particulars. 11. It is, now, pointed out by Mr. Talukdar, learned Counsel for the accused-Petitioner, that both P.Ws. 1 and 2 have deposed that the truck crossed them and him Hazarat Ali. Hence, in such circumstance, contends Mr. Talukdar, these two witnesses could not have seen the said accident. While considering this aspect of the submissions made on behalf of the accused-Petitioner, what needs to be borne in mind is that the consistent evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is to the effect that Hazarat Ali was standing on the eastern side of the road and after a bus had already crossed the road, Hazarat Ali came to the western side of the road with a bundle of cucumber on his head and standing on the katcha portion of the PWD road, while Hazarat Ali was putting down the bundle on the katcha portion of the road, the said mini truck came and knocked Hazarat Ali down. The accident, so described, clearly shows that after P.Ws. 1 and 2 had seen Hazarat Ali putting down cucumber, the truck driven by the accused-Petitioner, passed from near the place, where these two witnesses were standing, and hit Hazarat Ali. There can be no escape from the conclusion that the vehicle was driven by the accused-Petitioner rashly and it was as a result of such rash driving that Hazarat Ali had sustained injuries and died. 12. As far as P.W. 3 (Samsul) is concerned, his evidence is that while he was working at his field, Hazarat Ali collected cucumber from his field and went to the road and after hearing hullah on the road, when he (P.W. 3) went to the place of occurrence, he found Hazarat Ali lying on the road. Though P.W. 3 has, admittedly, not seen the accident, his evidence lends support to the evidences of P.Ws. 1 and 2 inasmuch as P.Ws. 1 and 2 have described that Hazarat Ali had come to the road with a bundle of cucumber on his head. 13. At the time of hearing of this revision petition, nothing sustainable could be pointed out by the learned Counsel for the accused-Petitioner to show that the evidence of P.W. 1 and/or P.W. 2 cannot be believed or should not be relied upon. 14. 13. At the time of hearing of this revision petition, nothing sustainable could be pointed out by the learned Counsel for the accused-Petitioner to show that the evidence of P.W. 1 and/or P.W. 2 cannot be believed or should not be relied upon. 14. What, therefore, emerges from the above discussion is that the evidence on record prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was as a result of rash driving of his truck by the accused-Petitioner that the truck hit Hazarat Ali, while he was standing not on the metallic portion of the road, but on the katcha portion of the road and while so standing by the side of the metallic road, when he was putting down the bundle of cucumber, which he was carrying on his head, the offending truck came and dashed against him. Mewed thus, it is clear that the accused was proved to be guilty beyond all reasonable doubt under Sections 279 and 304 IPC. 15. Because of what have been discuss and pointed out above, I do not find that the conviction of the accused-Petitioner suffers from any infirmity, legal or factual. 16. Though Mr. Talukdar, learned Counsel for the accused-Petitioner, has submitted that the sentences imposed on the accused-Petitioner is harsh and deserves to be reduced, what needs to be noted is that in the case at hand, the accident, as discernible from the evidence on record, occurred entirely due to rash driving of the said truck by the accused-Petitioner. When a person drives a vehicle as rashly as the accused-Petitioner did and kills a person, the sentence imposed by the Court must reflect the society's disapproval of such rush driving. The present case reminds one of the case of Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2000 Cri.L.J. 2283) (SC), wherein the Apex Court observed and held as follows: While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost through out his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost through out his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of a human being; or even if such death is causes he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly that even he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the Court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence causing death of human being due to his callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape from jail sentence. This is a role which the Courts can play, particularly, at the level of trial Court, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles. 17. In the present case, I do not find any extenuating circumstance in favour of reducing the sentence passed against the accused-Petitioner. The impugned judgment and order, therefore, needs to be maintained in its entirety. 18. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this revision fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. Petition dismissed