Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC and on completion of trial, the trial court convicted him for the offences under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 279 of IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC with fine of Rs.3,000, failing which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, the petitioner unsuccessfully appealed before the appellate Court as the Crl. Appeal No.7 of 2006 filed by him was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 20.09.2006. As against the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present Criminal Revision. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.01.2003 at about 8.00 pm, PW1-Shanthi was going by walk along with her husband Arul who was also walking along with her by pushing the by-cycle. At that time, the lorry bearing Registration No. TAM 7677 was driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner and hit the husband of PW1 namely Arul from behind. In the impact, the husband of PW1 was dragged for some distance and he sustained grievous injuries in his abdomen and other vital parts of the body. He was taken to the hospital in an auto and inspite of the treatment given to him, he died at 9.40 pm. On the next day i.e., 05.01.2003, PW1 gave a complaint to PW6, Sub-Inspector of Police, based on which the case in Crime No. 7 of 2003 came to be registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC. 3. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, Pws 1 to 8 were examined and Exs. P1 to 7 were marked. On behalf of the accused no documentary evidence were marked or witnesses were examined. PW1 is the wife of the deceased. Pws 2 and 3 are independent eye witnesses, who have witnessed the incident. PW4 is one of the neighbour of PW1, who has seen the deceased in the hospital on hearing the accident. PW5 is the attesting witness in Ex.P2, Mahazar prepared by PW6. PW1 is the wife of the deceased. Pws 2 and 3 are independent eye witnesses, who have witnessed the incident. PW4 is one of the neighbour of PW1, who has seen the deceased in the hospital on hearing the accident. PW5 is the attesting witness in Ex.P2, Mahazar prepared by PW6. PW6 is the investigation officer. PW7 is the Doctor who performed the postmortem on the deceased. PW8 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. On conclusion of trial and upon analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court held that the petitioner/accused had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased from behind, with the result, the deceased died in the hospital. The defence made on behalf of the the accused that the accused was not identified by the prosecution witnesses was brushed aside by the trial court by holding that the accused was identified not only by PW1 but also Pws 2 and 3, who are independent witnesses. The trial court also rejected the theory that the deceased contributed to the accident as he was in an inebirated condition at the time of accident. The findings rendered by the trial court were also accepted by the first appellate Court which resulted in the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner/ accused. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that PW1 is an interested witness and her evidence cannot be taken note of to base a conviction. Further, there are contradiction in the version of PWs 1, 2 and 3 which were not taken note of by the trial court as well as the first appellate Court. The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW1 in the proper perspective, as, PW1, in her evidence stated that at the time of accident, she was at Sivathapuram and she came to know about the accident only later. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the presence of PW1 in the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful and therefore, he prayed for setting aside the judgment of the courts below. 5. On the contrary, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would contend that the trial court had analysed the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution extensively and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC. 5. On the contrary, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would contend that the trial court had analysed the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution extensively and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC. PW1 is the wife of the deceased and her presence at the time of accident was not only corroborated by PW2, but also by PW3, who are independent witnesses. There may be some contradictions in the evidence of PW1 but that such evidence has not affected the case put forth by the prosecution in any manner. Further, PW1 studied upto 4th standard and her mental condition at the time of adducing evidence cannot be expected to be stable, especially when she deposes in connection with the accident in which her husband died in front of her eyes. Therefore, the court below rightly held that PW1 was present at the scene of occurrence and her presence cannot be held to be doubtful. As far as sentence is concerned, the learned Government Advocate relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra) 2012 2 SCC 648 to contend that in case of offences under Section 304-A of IPC, a minimum sentence of 6 months has to be awarded. In the present case, the courts below have rightly awarded the punishment which is in consonance with the nature of charges complained of against the petitioner and therefore he prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Petition. 6. I heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State. This is a case where the petitioner, who was the driver of a lorry, alleged to have driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and in violation of the traffic rules which resulted in the death of the husband of PW1. According to PW1, she was accompanying her husband and going by walk on the left side of the road, while her husband was pushing the bicycle. At that time, the accused driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, without making a horn, and dashed against her husband. In the impact, her husband was dragged for some distance, hit by an iron pillar and sustained grievous bleeding injuries. At that time, the accused driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, without making a horn, and dashed against her husband. In the impact, her husband was dragged for some distance, hit by an iron pillar and sustained grievous bleeding injuries. It was further deposed by PW1 that she made a hue and cry and on hearing the same, people in and around came to the scene of occurrence and arranged for an autorickshaw to take the deceased to the hospital. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, PW1 was not at all present in the scene of occurrence and her presence is highly doubtful. In this context, the cross-examination of PW1 has to be looked into. In the cross-examination, PW1 has stated that "rk;gtj;jpd; nghJ ehd; rptjhg[uj;jpy; ,Ue;njd;/" By reading this portion of the evidence, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that at the time of accident, PW1 was in her residence at Sivathapuram and therefore she could not have been present at the scene of occurrence. Such a contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. What PW1 intended to say is that at the time of the accident, she was residing in Sivathapuram and it cannot be construed or taken as if she was in Sivathapuram at the time of accident. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the portion of the cross-examination of PW1 wherein she had deposed that "khiy M!;gj;jphpf;F te;j nghJ jhd; tpgj;J Fwpj;J bjhpa[k;/" By relying on this portion of the deposition of PW1, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended the presence of PW1 in the scene of occurrence is very much doubtful and based on the same the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner is liable to be set aside. A perusal of the chief examination as well as cross-examination of PW1 would disclose that PW1 studied upto 4th standard. She is the widow of the deceased. She was cross-examined after two years from the date of accident i.e., on 02.03.2005. Further, PW1 was called upon to depose about the accident in which her husband died in her presence and therefore, given the magnitude of the mental condition in which she deposed before the court below, it is quite possible and natural to have given some inconsistent evidence. Further, PW1 was called upon to depose about the accident in which her husband died in her presence and therefore, given the magnitude of the mental condition in which she deposed before the court below, it is quite possible and natural to have given some inconsistent evidence. Such inconsistencies cannot be blown out of proportion especially when the accident was proved by examining other independent witnesses namely Pws 2 and 3. Even otherwise, Pws 2 and 3, who are independent witnesses, have categorically spoken about the nature of the accident and the manner in which it occurred and their evidence could not be assailed by the petitioner in any manner. Therefore, merely because there are some inconsistencies in the evidence of PW1, it will not affect the case of the prosecution especially when Pws 2 and 3 have given cogent and corroborated evidence to prove the accident. In fact, PW3 withstood the cross-examination at the instant of the petitioner/accused and categorically spoken about the manner in which the accident took place and categorically deposed that because of the accident, the deceased died. PW3 would further depose that the vehicle was driven by the petitoiner/accused in a rash and negligent manner due to which the lorry hit the deceased from behind which resulted in his death. Therefore, if all these evidences are taken into account, it can be safely concluded that the accident is proved and the inconsistencies in the version of PW1 will not in any way affect the case of the prosecution. Therefore, I hold that the findings of the trial court that the petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to which the husband of PW1 died is legally sustainable and interference of this Court is not warranted. 9. As far as sentence is concerned, the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in (Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra) 2012 2 SCC 648 held that if the offence under Section 304-A is held proved, minimum sentence of six months has to be awarded. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, I hold that the sentence of six months awarded by the Court below for the proved offence under Section 304-A of IPC is reasonable and justifiable and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 10. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, I hold that the sentence of six months awarded by the Court below for the proved offence under Section 304-A of IPC is reasonable and justifiable and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 10. Before parting with, this Court feels that because of the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicles by its drivers, valuable human lives are lost or large number of men and women suffer physical disability due to such accidents. The future of the victims of the road accidents is shattered and become meaningless. In a Country like India, which witness burgeoning population, not a single day passes without a road accident. The cause for accident is mainly due to rash and negligent driving. The drivers of motor vehicle seldom follow the traffic Rules. The traffic rules are breached more, than in compliance. Therefore, it is high time that the traffic offenders have to be dealt with an iron hand. In all other countries, other than India, whenever an accident takes places, the same will be recorded in the driving licence of the driver or necessary endorsement will be made in the driving licence to show his antecedant. Thus, whenever a second accident takes place, the endorsement recorded or made in the driving licence will facilitate the traffic police to take appropriate action to either suspend the licence temporarily or permanently or to take such other appropriate action. Such a procedure has to be followed in our Country as well, as a measure of curtailing the road accidents to the maximum extent. Unless this is done, the offenders will not feel the repercussions that may follow. In this context, the below mentioned paragraphs in the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court referred to above, can be usefully extracted:- "96. The World Health Organisation in the Global Status Report on Road Safety has pointed out that speeding and drunk driving are the major contributing factors in road accidents. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the total number of deaths due to road accidents in India, every year is now over 1,35,000. NCRB report also states drunken driving as a major factor for road accidents. Our country has a dubious distinction of registering maximum number of deaths in road accidents. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the total number of deaths due to road accidents in India, every year is now over 1,35,000. NCRB report also states drunken driving as a major factor for road accidents. Our country has a dubious distinction of registering maximum number of deaths in road accidents. It is high time that lawmakers revisit the sentencing policy reflected in Section 304-A IPC. 11. With the above observation, the Criminal Revision case is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the Criminal revision case, the trial court is directed to take necessary steps as are necessary to secure the presence of the petitioner for undergoing the remaining period of sentence. It is needless to say that the sentence already undergone by the petitioner can be given set off as contemplated under Secton 428 of Cr.P.C.