Judgment Ram Chand Gupta, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 28.11.2002, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which appeal filed against judgment of conviction dated 16.9.1999, passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, vide which it held the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of. six months under Section 279 of Indian Penal code (for short IPC) and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence under Section 304-A IPC and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, was dismissed. However, substantive sentence for offence under Section 304-A IPC was reduced from one year to 8 months. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 18.3.1992, at 9.30 a.m., complainant Bala Ram alongwith his cousin Banti, aged about 7/8 years was returning on a cycle after serving meals to his father. When they reached near Dhaka Basti, a tanker bearing registration No. HR 35/1235, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite side and hit against the cycle, due to which complainant fell towards left side, whereas Banti fell towards right side and the front wheel of the tanker crushed the head of Banti, due to which he died at the spet. The driver of the tanker disclosed his name as Gaze Nand, i.e., the present petitioner-accused. The accident was also witnessed by Suraj Bhan Jangra, who was running a shop near the place of occurrence. On the basis of statement of com plainant Ex. PW5/A, formal FIR was recorded. Postmortem examination on the dead body of Banti, was got conducted. Postmortem Examination report is Ex PW3/A, according to which Banti died due to head injury, which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the natural course. 3. After completion of the investigation report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) was filed against the for his trial for offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC. Accused was charged accordingly, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses. 5. PW1 is Inderjeet Singh, who mechanically examined the tanker bearing registration Mo. Accused was charged accordingly, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses. 5. PW1 is Inderjeet Singh, who mechanically examined the tanker bearing registration Mo. HR 35/1235 and has given his report Ex. PA. 6. PW2 is Balbir Singh, Constable, who had carried ruqa to the police station for registration of the FIR. 7. PW3 is Dr. Dinesh Dhillon, who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Banti. 8. PW4 is Suraj Bhan HC, who had recorded formal FIR on receipt of ruqa. 9. PW5 is Sunil Photographer, who had taken the photographs of the place of occurrence. 10. PW6 is Bala Ram, complainant, who deposed regarding the case of the prosecution and got recorded complainant Ex. PW5/A. 11. PW7 is Lachman in whose presence bicycle, tanker and the deadbody were taken into possession by the police. 12. PW8 is Suraj Bhan, who deposed that he was working at his shop on 18.3.1992 when he observed that many people have gathered in front of his shop and he saw that one child was lying crushed under tanker bearing registration No. HR 35/1235. 13. Statement of accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the version of the prosecution witnesses and pleaded innocence, however, he did not lead any evidence in his defence. 14. Learned trial Court convicted the present petitioner for offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC and sentenced for the said offences as aforementioned. Accused preferred appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial court before the Court of Sessions Judge, Hisar, who dismissed the same while modifying the sentence of imprisonment for offence under Section 304-A IPC, hence the present revision petition. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. 16. It is settled principle of law that in its revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not to reappreeiate and reappraise the evidence until and unless, it comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse, illegal and erroneous on account of misreading of evidence. 16. It is settled principle of law that in its revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not to reappreeiate and reappraise the evidence until and unless, it comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse, illegal and erroneous on account of misreading of evidence. The Courts below while relying upon the cogent and convincing evidence of prosecution witnesses, were right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. 17. It has been argued by learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that the only independent eye-witness of the occurrence has not supported the prosecution version, rather he deposed that he had reached the place of occurrence after the accident. 18. However, merely, on this ground, the sole testimony of the complainant cannot be brushed aside. Name of the petitioner-accused has been found mentioned in the FIR itself. His name was disclosed at the place of occurrence. Moreover even from the deposition of PW8 Suraj Bhan Jangra, it is proved that accident took place with tanker bearing registration No. HR 35/12356. 19. It has further been argued that PW1 Inderjeet Singh, Mechanic, who examined the tanker and who has proved report Ex. PA has deposed in the cross-examination that after examining the tanker, he found that there was no mark of impact on the tanker. However, if accident had taken place between tanker and cycle and the child riding on the cycle came under the tanker, it is not necessary that a mark of impact must come on the tanker and hence no doubt is created in the prosecution version due to this fact. It was a busy area. The accused was coming from front side by driving a tanker. Whereas two children were coming on a cycle. Hence, it was incumbent upon the accused to have driven his tanker by taking extra care and at a slow speed. The very fact that he hit the tanker against cycle on which two children were riding, goes to prove that he was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner. 20. Hence, it was incumbent upon the accused to have driven his tanker by taking extra care and at a slow speed. The very fact that he hit the tanker against cycle on which two children were riding, goes to prove that he was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner. 20. Both the Courts below found the deposition of complainant Bala Ram convincing and reliable and the same was also corroborated by other circumstantial evidence, hence the testimony of the complainant cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that he is cousin of the deceased. 21. Hence, no fault can be found with the judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court as well as by learned Appellate Court. 22. So far as order of sentence is concerned, it has been argued by learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that he has already undergone 46 days of imprisonment and that he has been facing agony of trial since the year 1992, i.e., about 18 years, hence it is argued that he should be given benefit of probation of Offenders Act 1958, or the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgments rendered in Ram Pal v. State of Punjab 2006(1) RCR (Criminal) 784 and Rajpal v. State of Haryana 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 323. 23. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned State counsel that the present revision-petitioner has taken away the life of a child by crushing him under his tanker by driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, hence, taking into consideration the nature of offence, no interference in order of sentence passed by learned Appellate Court is called for. 24. Law on the point as to whether the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act should be granted to the accused convicted for offence under Section 304-A IPC, has been settled by Honble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(2) RCR (Crl.) 816 by observing that the courts should not as a normal rule, invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act when the accused is convicted of the offence under Section 304-A IPC in causing death of human beings by rash or negligent driving. Relevant paragraphs No. 12 and 13 of the judgment read as under : "12. Relevant paragraphs No. 12 and 13 of the judgment read as under : "12. In State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju, (1987) 1 SCC 538 : (AIR 1987 SC 861 : 1987 Crl.L.J. 776) this Court did not allow a sentence of fine. Imposed on a driver who was convicted under Section 304-A IPC to remain in force although the High Court too had confirmed the said sentence when an accused was convicted of the offence of driving a bus callously and causing death of a human being. In that case this Court enhanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months besides imposed a fine. 13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, Criminal Courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the PO Act. 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 consideration should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout 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 any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence, and lastly that even if 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 of causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape from jail sentence. This is the role which the Courts can play, particularly at the level of trial Courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles." 25. This is the role which the Courts can play, particularly at the level of trial Courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles." 25. This judgment was subsequently followed by the Honble Apex Court in B. Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka, 2008(3) R.A.J. 554 : 2008(3) RCR (Crl.) 50 and the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act was denied to the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. 26. In the present case the accused hit the cycle being driven by two children by driving his tanker in rash and negligent manner and crushed a child under the wheel of his tanker. Learned trial Court has already reduced the sentence to 8 months rigorous imprisonment. 27. Hence, in view of legal proposition settled by Honble Apex Court in Dalbir Singhs case (supra) and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, no further reduction in sentence is called for, merely, on the ground that present revision petitioner is facing trial since the year 1992. 28. No other point was argued by learned counsel for the revision-petitioner. 29. The judgments rendered by the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the same are liable to be upheld. 30. Hence, for the reasons recorded above, the present revision-petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence are upheld. 31. Bail bonds of the present revision-petitioner stands cancelled. The concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude keeping in view the applicability of provision of Section 428 Cr.P.C.