Judgment Nirmaljit Kaur, J. 1. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa vide Order dated 29.08.2008 sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of the same, the petitioner was required to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 304-A IPC and in default of making payment of fine, he was further required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, which was dismissed vide Order dated 11.03.2010. 3. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the conviction by the trial Court and confirmed in appeal. The facts, as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa are that "On 13.07.2002 a wireless message from SHO Police Station Maur regarding dead body of Gurpiar Singh son of Darshan Singh resident of Maur in Civil Hospital Maur was received. Upon which ASI Gurdarshan Singh reached Civil Hospital Maur where Darshan Singh son of Pritam Singh Caste Rai Sikh resident of Maur got recorded his statement that he is doing the job of photography at Maur. Yesterday on 13.07.2002 he along with his son Gurpiar Singh was to go to the inlaws house of his son Gurpiar Singh at Sunam. Gora Lal son of Amar Nath came to them and told that he is to go to Bhikhi. His son Gurpiar Singh went to his scooter No. PB-31 C 3392 and he sat on the pillion seat of Motorcycle of Gora Lal. When they were 2 KM behind village Bhaini Bagha his son Gurpiar Singh was ahead of them on his scooter and they were following him. A canter bearing No. PB 02 K 9747 came from the side of Mansa at very fast speed. The driver of the canter hit his canter in the scooter of his son from front side while driving from wrong side, in a negligent manner and the scooter got entangled in the canter and thereafter over turned the canter. He alongwith Gora Lal after parking their motorcycle found that his son had received multiple injuries and the driver to whom they can identify, if appeared before them ran from the spot. At that time it was 3.30 pm. He alongwith Gora Lal after parking their motorcycle found that his son had received multiple injuries and the driver to whom they can identify, if appeared before them ran from the spot. At that time it was 3.30 pm. He and Gora Lal took care of his son. A Cart coming from the direction of Mansa was stopped and they put his son for taking him to Bhatinda for treatment. His son succumbed to injuries on the way and they took him to Civil Hospital Maur." 4. The prosecution examined Darshan Singh PW-1. He is the complainant in the case. PW-4 Gora Lal. He is the eye-witness and supported the ocular version of PW-1. PW-5 Baljinder Singh is the witness of extra judicial confession besides the other relatives and formal witnesses. Thus, from the statement of PW-1 Darshan Singh, PW-4 Gora Lal and PW-5 Baljinder Singh coupled with the recovery memo, photographs and reports, it is proved that the accused was driving canter in a rash and negligent manner. The trial Court while coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of rash and negligent driving, concluded as under :- "The accused has not denied the accident rather he has denied his rash and negligent act. In this regard prosecution has examined PW-5 Baljinder Singh in whose presence accused had made an extra judicial confession admitting himself that he ran away from the spot as per statement of PW1 Darshan Singh and PW4 Gora Lal. Had he not run from the spot he should have made the efforts to save the deceased even after the accident to the best of his prudence. His running from the spot shows his conduct that he was guilty and ran away from the spot. However, in the present case PW1 Darshan Singh and PW4 Gora Lal have no previous enmity with the accused, for his false implication. Even the factum of over turning of the canter shows that the canter was at a fast speed and it is incumbent upon the driver to maintain speed and distance so that in case of any another untoward accident one may apply brakes and save one from the accident. Had the accused maintained the speed and distance for safe passage of the deceased the accident could have been avoided. Had the accused maintained the speed and distance for safe passage of the deceased the accident could have been avoided. As such the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused while driving canter bearing No. PB 02K 9747 stands proved." 5. Although, the petitioner was not identified but he himself suffered extra judicial confession before PW-5 Baljinder Singh who knew the accused. There is no infirmity or illegality in the finding of the Court below. Thus, there is no ground to set aside the judgment dated 30.09.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court-II, Sangrur, convicting the petitioner and Order dated 11.03.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, vide which the appeal against the said Order has been dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed and the conviction is upheld. 6. However taking into account the fact that the petitioner is facing litigation since 2002, the sentence awarded to the petitioner under Section 304-A is reduced to six months. The quantum of fine shall remain same. 7. The revision petition is dismissed except with the modification of sentence as above. The period of detention, if any, shall be set against the substantive sentence awarded. Both the sentences shall run concurrently as already ordered by the Court below.