JUDGMENT K.C. Puri, J.:-Shri Anil Kumar Bishnoi, the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa tried the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. Eventually, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC vide judgment dated 19.11.2005 and vide separate order dated 21.11.2005, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Sections 279, simple imprisonment for six months under Section 337 and further simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 9.3.1997, a medical ruqa regarding the admission of injured Rano, Gurdas, Kulwant and Neki Ram in General Hospital, Sirsa was received in the Police Station upon which Baldev Singh HC rushed to the hospital and according to the opinion of the doctor, all the injured were not fit to make their statements. On 10.3.1997, ASI Rajinder Singh again went to the hospital and all the injured persons were declared fit to make their statements. He recorded the statement of Kulwant Singh. 3. It is further alleged by the prosecution that on 12.3.1997, a medical ruqa regarding the death of injured Rano was received from General Hospital, Sirsa, upon which Rajinder Singh ASI went to the hospital and recorded the statement of Jagga Singh to the effect that on 9.3.1997, he along with Hazara Singh, Raj Rani, Rano, Guddi Bai, Kundan Singh, Balbir Singh, Sita Ram, Puran Chand and Gurdas left village Dhanna in a jeep to attend Bhog ceremony. The jeep was being driven by Neki Ram, driver. When they reached near the bus stand of village Burj Karamgarh, a scooter arrived from the side of Burj Karamgarh. The driver of the jeep tried to save the scooterist but due to high speed, the jeep struck against a Mile-stone and over turned. Due to the impact, Kulwant, Rano, Gurdas and Raj Rani suffered injuries and Neki Ram, driver also received injuries. All the injured persons were got admitted in he hospital for medical aid. Rano succumbed to the injuries and all this had happened due to rash and negligent driving of jeep driver. On the basis of aforesaid statement coupled with the MLR, formal FIR was lodged. 4. All the injured persons were got admitted in he hospital for medical aid. Rano succumbed to the injuries and all this had happened due to rash and negligent driving of jeep driver. On the basis of aforesaid statement coupled with the MLR, formal FIR was lodged. 4. The investigation, in the case, was conducted and after completion of same, the accused was challaned. 5. The accused was charge-sheeted to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined PW-1 Jagga Singh, PW-2 Raj Rani, PW-3 HC Ram Sarup, PW-4 Inspector Jai Kishan, PW-5 SI Rajinder Singh, PW-6 HC Somvir Singh, PW-7 Kundan Singh, PW-8 Dr. S.L.Aggarwal, PW-9 Dr. J.K.Bishnoi and PW-10 Kulwant Singh. 7. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. 8. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in defence. 9. The trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as noticed earlier. 10. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment, the accused filed an appeal which was dismissed by Shri Hari Paran Singh, Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide judgment dated 19.8.2008. 11. Still feeling dis-satisfied with the said judgment, the petitioner has preferred the instant Criminal Revision. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that according to the case of the prosecution itself, a scooterist came from the opposite direction and the petitioner tried to save him, but, in that process, he could not control the jeep in question and the jeep struck against the mile-stone. The prosecution has failed to prove that there was any negligence on the part of revisionist and that the revisionist was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. He has further contended that in the FIR itself, it has been mentioned that the scooter came from the opposite side and Neki Ram petitioner tried to save him but since the jeep was at a high speed, so, on that count, it struck against the mile-stone. It has not been mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner was driving the jeep rashly and negligently. Therefore, both the Courts below have not taken into account this aspect of the case. 13. It has not been mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner was driving the jeep rashly and negligently. Therefore, both the Courts below have not taken into account this aspect of the case. 13. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 19.8.2008 and has undergone incarceration for a period of about three months out of substantive sentence of two years. It has been prayed that in case this Court did not agree with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding acquittal, in that case, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 14. The learned State counsel has supported the judgments of both the Courts below. He has submitted that there are concurrent findings of both the Courts below and the Revisional Court cannot arrive at a different conclusion. 15. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the record of the case. 16. So far as the findings of both the Courts below that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner is concerned, those findings do not call for any interference. According to the prosecution story, the occurrence had taken place near bus stand, Burj Karamgarh. So, the petitioner was required to be more vigilant near bus stand. The fact remains that one person has lost the life due to rash and negligent driving of petitioner and some other passengers have received injuries due to the act of the petitioner. However, while awarding sentence, this Court has to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner made efforts to save the scooterist. So, this circumstance makes out a case for reduction of sentence. Consequently, the findings of both the Courts below regarding guilt of the accused stand confirmed. 17. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had already undergone incarceration for about three months, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner be released forthwith in case he is not required in any order case. 18. This Criminal Revision stands disposed of, in the above terms. 19. This judgment be conveyed to the concerned quarter for strict compliance. ------------------