JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J This revision is directed against judgment dated 17.1.2005 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2002/6 of 2004 affirming judgment dated 16.9.2002 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barsar in Criminal Case No.8-I.2001/32-II/2001. The petitioner has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 201 IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 338 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 201 IPC with default clauses. On realization of fine amount Rs.1,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to PW-6 Rajesh Kumar and Rs.500/- each to PW-2 Smt. Savitri Devi and Smt. Radha Devi respectively. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 26.11.2000 at 5.20 p.m. an unknown person gave a telephonic information at Police Station, Barsar that a Tanker and a Maruti Car had collided near village Tikker Brahmna. The daily diary report Ex.PW-9/A was made. The police reached the spot and statement of PW-1 Parkash Chand was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The complainant has stated that on 26.11.2000, he, his wife PW-2 Savitri Devi and Smt. Radha were returning from village Nagyarda at about 4.45 p.m. PW-6 Rajesh Kumar was driving the car and when the car was approaching a culvert near village Tikker Brahmna, a tanker bearing registration No.HR-01-GA-0865 came from opposite Salooni side in high speed. Rajesh Kumar stopped the car on the side of the road but tanker driver due to excessive speed could not negotiate the curve and control the tanker, as a result of which tanker hit the car. 3. It has been further stated that car pushed backward for about 20-25 feet and fell in a Nullah. In the accident PW-2 Smt.Savitri Devi, Smt. Radha, PW-6 Rajesh sustained injuries. The complainant luckily escaped unhurt. The tanker driver fled away from the spot with the vehicle. PW-3 Wattan Singh chased the tanker on his scooter and stopped the tanker at a distance. On enquiry tanker driver disclosed his name Charan Singh. In the accident PW-2 Smt.Savitri Devi, Smt. Radha, PW-6 Rajesh sustained injuries. The complainant luckily escaped unhurt. The tanker driver fled away from the spot with the vehicle. PW-3 Wattan Singh chased the tanker on his scooter and stopped the tanker at a distance. On enquiry tanker driver disclosed his name Charan Singh. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. On this, FIR Ex.PW-9/B was registered. 4. The injured were got medically examined. The mechanical examination reports of the vehicles were obtained. The spot map was prepared. On completion of investigation, challan was submitted in the Court. The notice of accusation was put to the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 201 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined ten witnesses and produced some documents. The statement of petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the prosecution case. The defence has examined DW-1 Jagtar Singh. On conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate on 16.9.2002 convicted and sentenced the petitioner as noticed above. The appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur on 17.1.2005. The accused has thus come in revision. 5. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the two Courts below have misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence. The view taken by them does not emerge from the evidence. The impugned judgment is perverse. The accident has not taken place in the manner projected by the prosecution. The PW-6 was driving the car in high speed, he could not control the car, as a result of which accident took place. The petitioner was not at fault. The petitioner has been implicated falsely in order to claim compensation. The sentence imposed is excessive. He has submitted for acceptance of revision. The learned Addl. Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment. She has submitted that the two Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact about the negligence of the petitioner in causing the accident. The findings recorded by the two Courts below are in consonance with the evidence. The scope in revision is very limited. She has submitted for dismissal of the revision. 6. PW-1 Parkash Chand has stated that on 26.11.2000, car No.HP-22-9821 was being driven by his nephew Rajesh Kumar. The findings recorded by the two Courts below are in consonance with the evidence. The scope in revision is very limited. She has submitted for dismissal of the revision. 6. PW-1 Parkash Chand has stated that on 26.11.2000, car No.HP-22-9821 was being driven by his nephew Rajesh Kumar. They were about to reach Brahmna Tikker culvert, a tanker No.865 came from opposite side and hit the car. The tanker was in high speed. Rajesh Kumar on seeing the tanker stopped the car on the side. The car with the impact of the tanker was thrown into nullah. Smt.Savitri Devi, Smt.Radha Devi and Rajesh Kumar sustained injuries in the accident. The tanker driver sped away from the spot. Wattan Singh came there, who chased the tanker and overpowered the tanker driver at Banni and brought him back on the spot. He identified the petitioner who was driving the tanker. The accident took place due to negligence of tanker driver. He has stated that his statement Ex.PW-1/A was recorded. In cross-examination he has stated that there was a curve at Tikker Brahmna culvert. He denied that the car was in high speed and car overturned due to sudden application of brakes and fell down. He has stated that the two vehicles could not cross at a time at culvert. 7. PW-2 Smt.Savitri Devi has stated that car was being driven by Rajesh Kumar. The car had reached a curve before Brahmna Tikker, a tanker came from opposite side. Rajesh stopped the car on the left side but tanker was in high speed and its driver could not control the tanker and hit the car. The car fell down 20-25 feet in the gorge. Rajesh and Smt.Radha sustained injuries in the accident. The accident took place due to the negligence of the tanker driver which was being driven by petitioner. In cross-examination she has stated that there was a curve adjacent to a culvert and two vehicles at a time could not cross. The accident took place ahead of the culvert. She denied that due to sudden application of the brakes the car turned turtle. The car was on its side so also the tanker. 8. PW-3 Wattan Singh has stated that at about 4.45 p.m. he reached Tikker Brahmna, Parkash Chand told him that a tanker of Haryana registration hit the car. The accident took place ahead of the culvert. She denied that due to sudden application of the brakes the car turned turtle. The car was on its side so also the tanker. 8. PW-3 Wattan Singh has stated that at about 4.45 p.m. he reached Tikker Brahmna, Parkash Chand told him that a tanker of Haryana registration hit the car. He chased the tanker and overpowered it at Banni and returned back alongwith the tanker driver. He identified the petitioner being the tanker driver. In cross-examination he has stated that accident did not take place in his presence. 9. PW-4 Jagmohan Singh Mechanic has proved the mechanical reports of tanker and car Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-4/B respectively. In cross-examination he has stated that there was no dent on the bumper of the tanker. PW-5 Parkash Chand is not a material witness. PW-6 Rajesh Kumar has stated that at about 4.45 p.m. they were at Tikker Brahmna culvert, he noticed tanker coming from the opposite side and he stopped the car on one side. The tanker was in high speed and its driver could not control the tanker which hit the car, as a result of which car was pushed back 15 feet and fell in the khad. He and the women sitting in the car sustained injuries. The tanker driver sped away from the spot. The petitioner was driving the tanker. In cross-examination he has stated the culvert on spot was narrow and two vehicles could not cross at a time. He was on his side and tanker was also on its side. He denied that due to sudden application of brakes the car turned and went of the road. He denied that tanker did not hit the car. 10. PW-7 Ramesh Lal Photographer has proved photographs Ex.PW-7/A to Ex.PW-7/D, negatives Ex.PW-7/E to Ex.PW-7/H. PW-8 Dr. Sanjay Kumar on 26.11.2000 examined Rajesh Kumar and issued MLC Ex.PW-8/A. PW-9 Prem Chand is the Investigating Officer, he has proved FIR Ex.PW-9/B. He prepared spot map Ex.PW-9/C. In the cross-examination he has stated that there is no blind curve at the place of accident. PW-10 Dr. Avinash Sharma has proved MLC Ex.PW-10/A of Smt.Radha Devi and MLC Ex.PW-10/B of Smt.Savitri Devi. 11. The petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. DW-1 Jagtar Singh has stated that he was conductor on vehicle No.HR-01GA-0865 on 26.11.2000. PW-10 Dr. Avinash Sharma has proved MLC Ex.PW-10/A of Smt.Radha Devi and MLC Ex.PW-10/B of Smt.Savitri Devi. 11. The petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. DW-1 Jagtar Singh has stated that he was conductor on vehicle No.HR-01GA-0865 on 26.11.2000. They were going from Hamirpur to Ambala. At place Tikker the car driver could not negotiate the curve and car fell down in the gorge. There was no collusion between car and truck. In cross-examination he has stated that he is conductor with the driver for the last 5-7 months, his statement was recorded on 22.1.2002. 12. Ex.PW-9/A is the rapat No.17 entered at Police Station, Barsar. Ex.PW-1/A is the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of PW-1 Parkash Chand. On the basis of Ex.PW-1/A, FIR Ex.PW9/B was registered. Ex.PW-9/C is the spot map. Ex.PW-8/A is the MLC of Rajesh Kumar whereas Ex.PW-10/A and Ex.PW-10/B are the MLCs of Smt.Radha Devi and Smt.Savitri Devi respectively. Ex.PW-4/A is the mechanical report of truck No.HR-01GA-0865, Ex.PW-4/B is the mechanical report of car No.HP-22-9821. Ex.PW-7/A to Ex.PW-7/C are the photographs of the car and Ex.PW-7/D is the photograph of truck. Ex.PW-7/E to Ex.PW-7/H are the negatives. 13. In Ex.PW-1/A statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., PW-1 Parkash Chand has stated that the car with the impact was pushed 20-25 feet back and fell down in the nullah. The accident has not been denied by the petitioner so also the injuries sustained by the injured, therefore, medical evidence of the injured require no discussion. The question involved in the case is whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. 14. PW-3 Wattan Singh has stated that accident did not take place in his presence. Therefore, PW-3 is not an eye witness of the accident. The prosecution has examined PW-1 Parkash Chand, PW-2 Smt.Savitri Devi and PW-6 Rajesh Kumar occupants of the car which met with an accident. According to prosecution accident took place near culvert shown in spot map Ex.PW-9/C. PW-1 has stated that they were about to reach Brahmna Tikker culvert when tanker came from the opposite side and hit the car. PW-2 Smt.Savitri Devi has stated that the car had reached a curve before Brahmna Tikker. Rajesh stopped the car on the left side but tanker hit the car in high speed. PW-2 Smt.Savitri Devi has stated that the car had reached a curve before Brahmna Tikker. Rajesh stopped the car on the left side but tanker hit the car in high speed. She has stated that accident had taken place ahead of the culvert. In other words according to PW-2 the car had crossed the culvert. 15. PW-6 Rajesh Kumar has stated that he noticed tanker coming from the opposite side and stopped the car on one side. The tanker was in high speed and its driver could not control the tanker and hit the car, as a result of which the car was pushed back 15 feet and fell in the khad. PW-2 Savitri Devi has stated that accident took place ahead of the culvert i.e. after crossing the culvert whereas it emerges from the statement of PW-1 Parkash Chand and PW-6 Rajesh Kumar that accident took place when the car had not crossed the culvert. All the material prosecution witnesses have stated that two vehicles at a time could not cross the culvert. 16. In the spot map Ex.PW-9/C point-A is the place where accident took place. The car was going from point-C to point–A and the tanker was coming from the opposite side. Thus, according to spot map accident took place before car crossed the culvert. This stand of the prosecution has been contradicted by PW-2 Savitri Devi occupant of the car who has stated that the car had crossed the culvert when accident took place. This creates suspicion in the prosecution case. 17. In Ex.PW-1/A it has been stated that due to the impact of the accident the car was pushed back 20-25 feet. PW-6 Rajesh Kumar has stated that due to the impact of the accident the car was pushed back 15 feet and fell in the khad. In mechanical report Ex.PW-4/B of the car it has been stated that entire body of the car was badly broken including front screen, bumper, head lights, right side door, dickey and roof etc. PW-6 Rajesh Kumar has stated that due to the impact of the accident the car was pushed back 15 feet and fell in the khad. In mechanical report Ex.PW-4/B of the car it has been stated that entire body of the car was badly broken including front screen, bumper, head lights, right side door, dickey and roof etc. The prosecution has placed on record photographs of the car Ex.PW-7/A and Ex.PW-7/C which do not show that the car has been damaged in the manner shown in mechanical report Ex.PW-4/B. In case, the car would have been hit by the tanker and pushed back 20-25 feet and fell down in a gorge then the body of the car should have been badly mangled but there is no such damage in the car as per photographs Ex.PW-7/A and Ex.PW-7/C. The prosecution story becomes more suspicious after perusing the photographs Ex.PW-7/A and Ex.PW-7/C. 18. In the mechanical report of tanker Ex.PW-4/A it has been stated that number plate had tilted a bit alongwith damage of silencer muffler. The prosecution case is that tanker hit the car from front, therefore, there is no question of any damage to the silencer muffler of the tanker in the accident. PW-4 Jagmohan Singh has stated that there was no dent on the bumper of the tanker. This statement also supports the version of the petitioner that in fact tanker did not hit the car. There is ring of truth in the stand of the petitioner that PW-6 was driving the car in high speed. He applied the brakes all of a sudden, as a result of which car turned and went into the gorge. There are brake marks in the spot map Ex.PW-9/C. The prosecution has not projected the case that tanker applied sudden brake and brake marks shown in Ex.PW-9/C are of tanker. The possibility cannot be ruled out that brake marks shown in spot map Ex.PW-9/C are of car. 19. PW-1 and PW-6 have stated that car was on its side and tanker was on its side. When tanker was on its side and the accident had not taken place exactly on the culvert, it took place away from the culvert then there is no question of tanker hitting the car when it is not the case of the prosecution that at the place of accident two vehicles could not cross the road easily. When tanker was on its side and the accident had not taken place exactly on the culvert, it took place away from the culvert then there is no question of tanker hitting the car when it is not the case of the prosecution that at the place of accident two vehicles could not cross the road easily. The accident had not taken place on the culvert where two vehicles could not cross. 20. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that in revision the scope of interference is narrow. In Krishnan and another vs. Krishnaveni and another (1997) 4 SCC 241 , it has been held when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its juridical process or illegality of sentence or order. In the present case both the courts below have misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence in returning the findings that the petitioner was negligent in causing the accident. The view taken by the two Courts below is perverse and it does not emerge from the evidence on record. The conviction and sentence of petitioner recorded by two Courts below for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 201 IPC are not sustainable. 21. In view of above, the revision is allowed. The judgment dated 17.1.2005 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2002/6 of 2004, affirming judgment dated 16.9.2002 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barsar in Criminal Case No.8-1-2001/32-II/2001 convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338, 201 IPC is set aside, petitioner is acquitted of the accusation. The fine amount, if any deposited by the petitioner be refunded to him, his bail bonds are discharged.