JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code to undergo one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. However, on an appeal, the appellate Court, while upholding the order of conviction passed by the trial Court, reduced the sentence from one year simple imprisonment to 4 months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Being aggrieved with the same, the present revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner. 3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant PW-6 Lal Singh, in his cross-examination, admitted that an information about the incident was given to him by some children but the prosecution did not examine any children in the case. He further submits that, according to the statement of PW-6, other eye-witnesses came later, therefore, the Courts below have committed an illegality in convicting and sentencing the accused-petitioner for the above offence and their orders are liable to be set-aside by this Court. He also submits four months may be reduced to a period of about one-and-a-half month, the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the accused-petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment passed by the Courts below and contended that the appellate Court has already taken a lenient view by reducing the sentence of one year SI to 4 months SI, therefore, the same may not now be reduced as one person has lost his life due to negligent act of the accused-petitioner. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for both the parties and also examined the impugned judgment as well as the record of both the Courts below. 6. The Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact about commission of offence by the accused-petitioner. The Courts below have relied upon the statement of PW-4 Ramveer, who was eye-witness to the incident and stated before the Court that the accused-petitioner was the driver of the vehicle by which accident took place wherein one person died. 6. The Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact about commission of offence by the accused-petitioner. The Courts below have relied upon the statement of PW-4 Ramveer, who was eye-witness to the incident and stated before the Court that the accused-petitioner was the driver of the vehicle by which accident took place wherein one person died. The Courts below have also relied upon Exhibit-P/7, a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act given by the Investigating Agency to the owner of the vehicle, and in response thereto the owner of the vehicle Somveer Singh (PW-9) gave an information that at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle, which was involved in accident, was accused-petitioner. The finding of the Courts below is based on appreciation of evidence and no further appreciation can be made in revisional jurisdiction. 7. So far as reduction of sentence of imprisonment is concerned, I find that the appellate Court has already taken a lenient view in reducing the sentence from one year SI to 4 months SI, which is just and reasonable and, in my view, no further interference is called for in the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sharanappa Basangouda Aregoudar, 2002 Cr.L.R. (SC) 364 awarded six months SI under Section 304A of the IPC, the High Court reduced the sentence to payment of Rs. 5,000/- only. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while setting-aside the order of the High Court, restored the order of the Magistrate and the appellate Court. 8. There is no merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******