JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - Tersely, the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that, initially, in the wake of complaint (Ex.PA) of complainant Yashpal (PW1), a criminal case was registered against the petitioner-convict, by means of FIR No.449 dated 28.9.2003, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Fatehabad. 2. Having completed all the codal formalities and taking into consideration the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted & sentenced the petitioner-convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of 15 days for the commission of offence punishable u/s 279 IPC; to undergo RI for a period of six months, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of 15 days u/s 337 IPC and to undergo RI for a period of one year, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of 15 days u/s 304-A IPC. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the trial Court, by way of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.12.2009 (Annexure P3). 3. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal (Annexure P2) filed by the petitioner-convict was dismissed as well, by the appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgment dated 26.7.2012 (Annexure P1). 4. The petitioner-convict still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant revision-petition, to challenge the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.PC. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present revision petition in this context. 6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the evidence brought on record by the prosecution falls short as is required to prove a criminal case, so, the petitioner-convict is entitled to acquittal, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. 6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the evidence brought on record by the prosecution falls short as is required to prove a criminal case, so, the petitioner-convict is entitled to acquittal, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. As is evident from the record, the prosecution claimed that the accident in question had taken place on 28.9.2003 due to rash and negligent driving of petitioner-convict while driving a Haryana Roadways Bus, bearing registration No.HR46B-7265 (for brevity “the offending Bus”), in which, Kaura Singh, Shiv Shanker and Madhu Ram received injuries, whereas Chhabil Dass & Dharambir alias Dholia sustained grievous injuries, culminating into their death. 8. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges against the petitioner-convict, examined complainant Yashpal (PW1), other eye/injured witnesses Hari Singh (PW5), Ram Mehar (PW6), Madhu Ram (PW8), Shiv Shanker (PW9), Sagar alias Sunder (PW12), Dr.Anita Bansal (PW3), Dr.Rajiv Chauhan (PW10) & Dr.Veenu Dhanda (PW13). Tirlok Chand, Mechanic (PW2) proved the mechanic report (Ex.PW2/A). Rajinder Singh (PW11) identified the dead body of Dharambir (deceased), whereas Rakesh Kumar (PW12) identified the dead body of Chhabil Dass (deceased). HC Raghbir Singh (PW4) & SI Satbir Singh (PW7)testified their respective investigation. PW1 complainant Yashpal, PW5 Hari Singh, PW6 Ram Mehar, PW8 Madhu Ram & PW12 Sagar alias Sunder injured/eye witnesses have categorically stated, on oath, that the petitioner-convict was driving the offending Bus very rashly and negligently and caused the death of Chhabil Dass & Dharambir alias Dholia (deceased). Instead of reproducing their statements in toto and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that the injured/eye witnesses have duly corroborated the prosecution version on all vital counts. They were cross-examined at length, but nothing substantial could be elicited to dislodge their testimony. The evidence of prosecution brought on record is natural, convincing and reliable. No motive could possibly be attributed to complainant Yashpal (PW1), Hari Singh (PW5), Ram Mehar (PW6), Madhu Ram (PW8) & Sagar alias Sunder injured/eye witnesses as to why they would falsely implicate the petitioner-convict in the present case. 9. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitionerconvict that the non-examination of Investigating Officer is fatal to the prosecution case, lacks merit as well. In so far as the non-examination of the Investigating Officer is concerned, it is settled law that the same is not fatal to the prosecution case. 9. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitionerconvict that the non-examination of Investigating Officer is fatal to the prosecution case, lacks merit as well. In so far as the non-examination of the Investigating Officer is concerned, it is settled law that the same is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is a matter of common experience that in order to help the accused party specially in cases where the Investigating Officers are won over for whatever consideration they absent themselves and do not appear in the Court as witnesses. That ipso facto is not a ground much less cogent to disbelieve the entire prosecution version, which is otherwise proved on record in the manner as discussed here-inabove. 10. Not only that, the evidence was again appreciated and the appellate Court negatived the contentions, now sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioner-convict and dismissed his appeal, vide impugned judgment dated 26.7.2012 (Annexure P1). 11. In this manner, if the entire ocular version of injured/eye and other official witnesses coupled with the medical/documentary evidence, as depicted here-in-above, are put together, then, to me, the conclusion is inescapable that it stands proved on record that the petitioner-convict was responsible for causing the accident in question due to rash & negligent driving while driving the offending Bus, in which, Chhabil Dass & Dharambir alias Dholia had died. 12. Meaning thereby, both the Courts below have recorded the findings of fact based on the correct appreciation of evidence that the accident in question had taken place due to rash & negligent driving of petitioner-convict while driving the offending Bus and recorded the cogent grounds in this regard. Such articulated judgments, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in the exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same are illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner-convict, so, the impugned judgments (Annexures P1 & P3) deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. Faced with the grave situation, the learned counsel for petitioner-convict, however, urged that since the petitioner-convict has three small daughters, is a first offender and sole bread winner of his family, so, he be released on probation. 13. Faced with the grave situation, the learned counsel for petitioner-convict, however, urged that since the petitioner-convict has three small daughters, is a first offender and sole bread winner of his family, so, he be released on probation. Again, the submission of learned counsel is devoid of merit. The law as to whether the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act should be granted to the accused convicted for an offence punishable under section 304-A IPC is no more res integra and is now well settled. 14. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana 2000(2) RCR (Crl.) 816, wherein, it was ruled 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. It was further ruled (paras 12 & 13) 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 imposing 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 IPC 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. 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 for 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.” The same view was again reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case B. Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka, [2008(4) Law Herald (SC) 2487] : 2008(3) RCR (Crl.) 50. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 15. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-convict. 16. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. ---------0.B.S.0------------