JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J The appellant has challenged his conviction for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). He has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279, IPC. In default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. For offence under Section 304-A, IPC he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Learned trial Court acquitted the appellant herein. The prosecution case is that the accident occurred on 28.8.2009 at around 5.35 p.m. Complaint was lodged by PW-3 Shri Chhering stating that he was a mason and was working along with other labourers including the deceased at Gulaba. At around 2.40 P.M., the appellant was driving tanker No. JK-02-AG-7974 which came from the side Palchan Kothi and struck the deceased Sonam, aged about 20 years, as a result she sustained serious injuries, she was rushed to Misson Hospital, Manali where she was declared dead on arrival. 3. FIR Ex.PW6/A was registered on the basis of the statement Ex.PW3/A. The case proceeded in investigation, spot map Ex.PW6/C was prepared and the mechanical examination report, Ex.PW2/A was obtained which certified that the vehicle did not suffer from any mechanical defect etc. In his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in response to question No.4, the appellant states “laraki pichhle tyre ke niche aai thi, jab gari cross ho chuki thi. Laraki gari ke pichhle bhag se takrai thi. Jab shor macha, to maine gari vahin rok di. Main niche utra aur baki mazdooron ne meri pitai ki thi. Fir laraki ko GREEF walon kin zipsi mein dalkar asptal laye the aur mein sath aya tha lekin laraki raste mein hi mar gai thi” (The girl was crushed under the rear tyre after the vehicle had crossed. She hit against the rear side of the tanker. When hue and cry was raised, I stopped the tanker there, got down and all the labourers present beat me up. Thereafter the girl was taken in the gypsy of GREEF to the hospital, I accompanied her. She was declared dead on arrival). She hit against the rear side of the tanker. When hue and cry was raised, I stopped the tanker there, got down and all the labourers present beat me up. Thereafter the girl was taken in the gypsy of GREEF to the hospital, I accompanied her. She was declared dead on arrival). The learned trial Court has acquitted the accused solely on the ground that none of the witnesses have stated that she was struck by the front portion of the tanker. I note from the judgment of the learned trial Court that it is extremely bereft in assessing the evidence and the principles of law applicable. Be that as it may, the learned Appellate Court convicted the appellant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant urges that the learned Appellate court has erred in passing the judgment of conviction more especially when the witnesses of the prosecution do not support their case. Learned counsel refers to the statement of PW3 complainant Shri Chhering, who proved Ex.PW3/A and supports the case of the prosecution but in cross-examination states that “Sonam us wakt pathar bichha rahi thi. Yeh thik he ki gari ka munh Sonam se na baja v pichhe ka hissa bhi Sonam ko na laga tha” (At that time Sonam was laying stones on the road. It is correct that front portion of the vehicle did not strike Sonam. It is also correct that rear portion also did not strike Sonam). 5. I cannot rely solely on the statement of this witness who admits everything including the fact that the deceased had sustained injuries and was rushed to the hospital in gypsy belonging to GREEF. The proper way for assessing the evidence is not to rely upon one or two sentences but to consider a statement in its entirety and also to seek corroboration from the proved facts. In the present case what I find is that the post mortem report Ex.PW1/A and PW1 Dr. Balbir Rawal, M.O. CHC Manali clearly states that the cause of death of the deceased was crush injury of lumbo-sacral spine and pelvic bone leading to cardio respiratory arrest. 6. In the present case what I find is that the post mortem report Ex.PW1/A and PW1 Dr. Balbir Rawal, M.O. CHC Manali clearly states that the cause of death of the deceased was crush injury of lumbo-sacral spine and pelvic bone leading to cardio respiratory arrest. 6. In these circumstances, there can be no doubt that the deceased died while she was crushed under the wheels of the tanker driven by the accused for the reasons inter alia that there was no other vehicle passing by on the road at that time and there was no evidence to suggest that there was heavy flow of traffic. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. 7. Adverting to the sentence, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is the sole bread earner of the family and that his incarnation would entail starvation for the entire family. In these circumstances, It would be in the fitness of things if the sentence of imprisonment is set aside and fine of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty thousand only) is imposed upon the appellant. Such fine shall be deposited with the learned trial Court within a period of four months from today failing which the sentence awarded by the learned First Appellate Court shall revive and the same shall be faithfully executed by the learned trial Court. Appeal stands disposed of. 8. All pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.