Judgment : Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 25. 2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Tharapuram, Erode, confirming the judgement dated 1. 2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam. Challenging and impugning the judgement dated 25. 2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Tharapuram, Erode, confirming the judgement dated 1. 2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam, this criminal revision case is focussed. 2. Compendiously and concisely, the facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this case would run thus:- The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC as against the accused. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was conducted. (b) During trial, on the prosecution side P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined; Exs.P1 to P9 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. On the accused side, the accused examined himself as D.W.1 along with one other witness as D.W.2 and documentary evidence was adduced on his side. (c) Ultimately, the trial Court convicted the accused and imposed the following sentence. Case No. Offence Punishment imposed C.C.No.297 of 2004 279 IPC Fine of Rs.500/- in default, simple imprisonment for two weeks 304-A IPC Rigourous imprisonment for six months, and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default, three months S.I. (d) As against which, C.A.No.30 of 2006 was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam, Erode District, which Court confirmed in toto the conviction recorded and sentence imposed by the lower Court. (e) Impugning and challenging the judgements of both the Courts below, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the nitty-gritty of them would run thus:- Both the Courts below failed to take into consideration the fact that the testimony of the alleged eye witness, namely, P.W.1 does not go hand in hand with the sketch drawn by the I.O. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the relatives of the deceased and hence, their evidence should not have been believed by the Courts below. The evidence of D.W.2 was ignored unjustifiably. Accordingly, the revision petitioner prays for setting aside the order of the Courts below. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The evidence of D.W.2 was ignored unjustifiably. Accordingly, the revision petitioner prays for setting aside the order of the Courts below. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The point for consideration is as to whether the Courts below were perverse in appreciating the evidence without applying the law in proper perspective even though there was no real eyewitness to the occurrence. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor by inviting the attention of this Court to the various portions of the evidence, would develop his argument to the effect that this is a case in which the accident occurred while the driver of the bus was driving the vehicle from East to West direction along the road cobncerned in a rash and negligent manner and dashed as against the motorcyclist, who was coming from West to East and that after the accident, the driver of the bus did not stop the bus, but he could only stop it at a long distance away from the accident and this is indicative of the drivers rash and negligence in driving the vehicle, without caring for the safety of the other road users. 6. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to narrate pithily and precisely, the case of the prosecution: On 29. 2004 at about 19.00 hours, the deceased motorcyclist was driving his motorcycle bearing registration No.T.N.33 T 0664 from West to East along the Vellakovil to Kangayam East-West Main Road, Olapalayam near Mottakadu Pirivu. At that time, the offending bus bearing registration No.T.N.38 N 0810 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed as against the motorcyclist and caused his death and only after half furlong from the place of accident, the offending vehicle came to a halt. 7. Both the Courts below believed the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who were the eyewitnesses to the occurrence and there is nothing to indicate and display that their evidence is a tainted one or fraught with falsity. Simply because P.W.1 was related to the deceased, there is no presumption that his evidence should be discarded. The law in that connection is well settled and no elaboration in this regard is required. Ex.P6-the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report furnished by the Motor Vehicle Inspector-P.W.11-the Inspector of Police, would prove that the accident might not have been due to any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle. The law in that connection is well settled and no elaboration in this regard is required. Ex.P6-the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report furnished by the Motor Vehicle Inspector-P.W.11-the Inspector of Police, would prove that the accident might not have been due to any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle. As such, this evidence torpedoed the evidence of D.W.1-the accused that the bus allegedly could not be stopped at the spot of accident, because, the motorcycle got underneath the bus and prevented the break getting operated effectively. D.W.1 himself would depose and detail that he was negotiating along the road by adhering to his left side and at the place of accident, the road was slightly curve and hence, he was moving slowly. If that be so, then the accident would not have happened in the manner narrated by the prosecution and the offending bus would not have got stopped half a furlong away from the place of accident. P.W.2 would try to support the defence by stating as though the deceased motorcyclist was trying to cross the road in front of the bus and that he met with the accident. 8. The evidence of D.W.2 as well as D.W.1 do not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court for the reason that the place of accident was shown as the Northern portion of the East to West road, which means, the bus driver should not have gone to the Northern portion of the East to West road while he was proceeding from East to West. 9. Whereas, the motorcyclist, who was coming from West to East was expected to be on the Northern portion of the road and actually he was proceeding accordingly. Hence, it is clear that it was the driver of the bus, who was at fault. Both the Courts below correctly appreciating the evidence on record, arrived at the factual finding, warranting no interference, as there is no perversity or non application of law in interpreting the evidence. 10. Regarding the sentence, portion is concerned, the trial Court awarded six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. 11. At this juncture, I would like to cite the following decision of the Honourable Supreme Court: 2002(2) Supreme 500 State Of Karnataka Vs. Sharanappa Basnagouda Aregoudar, an excerpt from it would run thus: "6. 10. Regarding the sentence, portion is concerned, the trial Court awarded six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. 11. At this juncture, I would like to cite the following decision of the Honourable Supreme Court: 2002(2) Supreme 500 State Of Karnataka Vs. Sharanappa Basnagouda Aregoudar, an excerpt from it would run thus: "6. We are of the view that having regard to the serious nature of the accident, which resulted in the death of four persons, the learned Single Judge should not have interfered with the sentence imposed by the Court below. It may create and set an unhealthy precedent and send wrong signals to the subordinate courts which have to deal with several such accident cases. If the accused are found guilty of rash and negligent driving, courts have to be on guard to ensure that they do not escape the clutches of law very lightly. The sentence imposed by the courts should have deterrent effect on potential wrong-doers and it should commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. Of course, the Courts are given discretion in the matter of sentence to take stock of the wide and varying range of facts that might be relevant for fixing the quantum of sentence, but the discretion shall be exercised with due regard to larger interest of the society and it is needless to add that passing of sentence on the offender is probably the most public face of the criminal justice system." (emphasis supplied) 12. It is therefore clear that the Honourable Apex Court deprecated the practice of some of the Courts awarding lenient punishment in accident cases involving Section 304-A IPC. 13. Taking into consideration the fact that the accused was 28 years old, at the time of accident, so to say a man of young age, I am of the view that the sentence could be reduced to three months simple imprisonment, leaving intact the fine imposed. 14. In the result, the criminal revision case is partly allowed. The lower Court, on receipt of a copy of this order, is directed to issue warrant, to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and commit him to jail so as to make him to undergo the sentence imposed in this revision, if he has not already undergone. Any pre-trial detention is there, as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C., the same could be set off proportionately. Any pre-trial detention is there, as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C., the same could be set off proportionately. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.