JUDGMENT Mr. R.P. Nagrath, J.:- The petitioner has challenged his conviction under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) concurrently recorded by the Courts below and sentences awarded to him. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 304-A IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 337 IPC and three months of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 279 IPC. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. First Information Report (FIR) was registered on the statement of Sucha Singh injured an employee of Bharat Gas Factory, Lalru. Tata Sumo No. HR-55AT-5779 was engaged by the employer, for carrying the employees to and fro, the factory premisses. On 14.07.2005, after the factory hours they started in the said vehicle at 10.00 p.m. Inder Pal Singh PW-3 was the driver. Other employees of the factory, namely; Baldev Singh, Harish Malik, Gurcharan Singh and Rajinder Singh were the other occupants of Tata Sumo. When their vehicle reached in the area of Village Golumajra near S.P. Spring Factory towards Dera Bassi at about 10.25 p.m. that the offending truck No. HR-37-5348 came from the opposite direction. The truck was being driven very rashly and negligently and rammed into the Tata Sumo. The impact was so huge that Tata Sumo fell on one side of the road and the offending truck also turned turtle. The driver of the truck fled from the spot. The occupants of Tata Sumo were also entangled in the vehicle. The passersby extricated them from the vehicle and the complainant was brought to the Civil Hospital, Dera Bassi from where he was referred to Civil Hospital, Chandigarh. The complainant later on learnt that his companions Baldev Singh, Harish Malik, Gurcharan Singh and Rajinder Singh had all died at the spot. 3. Sucha Singh (PW-1) and Inder Pal Singh driver of Tata Sumo (PW-3) testified that petitioner was the driver of offending truck and that truck driver was rash and negligent in driving his vehicle on the public highway. 4. 3. Sucha Singh (PW-1) and Inder Pal Singh driver of Tata Sumo (PW-3) testified that petitioner was the driver of offending truck and that truck driver was rash and negligent in driving his vehicle on the public highway. 4. The learned petitioner’s counsel vehemently contended that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond doubt that petitioner was driver of the offending truck and that the incident occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the truck. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State counsel and minutely gone through the trial Court record. 6. The fact that four persons died because of the accidental injuries and complainant and Inder Pal Singh suffered bodily injuries could not be possibly assailed. 7. PW-5 Dr. Baldev Singh, Medical Officer, Rajendra Hospital, Patiala who was then posted in A.P. Jain Govt. Hospital, Rajupura, conducted postmortem examination on the dead bodies of Harish Malik, Baldev Singh and Rajinder Singh. In the opinion of doctor, cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries on the vital organs and multiple fractures etc. The postmortem examination was conducted on 15.07.2005. 8. On the same day Dr. Amandeep Bakhshi PW-10 conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Gurcharan Singh the 4th deceased and gave similar opinion about the cause of death. 9. Dr. Vivek Bhatia PW-11 conducted medicolegal examination on the person of Sucha Singh complainant on 15.07.2005 while he was posted as Senior Resident in the Government Hospital at Chandigarh. Copy of MLR is Ex. PW- 11/A. According to the doctor the injured had sustained fracture shaft of humerus right side and was operated on 19.07.2005. 10. Inder Pal Singh PW-3 driver of Tata Sumo was admitted in Mehndiratta Hospital, Bone & Joint Surgery and Physiotherapy Centre, Ambala City. PW-12 Dr. R.K. Mehndiratta, proprietor of the hospital testified that PW-3 was admitted in the hospital on 15.07.2005 at about 1.20 A.M. (mid-night), with history of road side accident and found 5 injuries on his person. The injured was discharged from the hospital on 17.07.2005 vide discharge slip Ex. PW-12/A. The patient record is Ex. PW-12/B. 11. For the petitioner, the very idea of PW-3 getting himself admitted in a private hospital has been doubted. This according to the learned counsel was done to conceal the factum of PW-3 being under the influence of liquor while driving his vehicle. PW-12/A. The patient record is Ex. PW-12/B. 11. For the petitioner, the very idea of PW-3 getting himself admitted in a private hospital has been doubted. This according to the learned counsel was done to conceal the factum of PW-3 being under the influence of liquor while driving his vehicle. There is no force in this contention because no such question was put to the doctor. In cross-examination, PW-12 stated from the record that Police was informed on 15.07.2005 itself about admission of the patient. PW-12 further stated that PW-3 was not known to him personally earlier or even now. It is not a case where the patient got himself admitted at a distant hospital for getting favourable report. I am rather of the opinion that immediate concern of the patient and his family is always to get the best possible medical treatment. This hospital is Bone & Joint Surgery and Physiotherapy Centre at Ambala City. There was not a remote suggestion even to PW-1 that PW-3 was under the influence of liquor while driving Tata Sumo. 12. Coming to the crucial questions framed at the outset, identity of the offending truck has been testified both by Sucha Singh (PW-1) and Inder Pal Singh (PW-3) in the witness box. No question was put to these witnesses to dispute this fact. The whole exercise during cross-examination was to contend that PW-3 was rather negligent in driving his vehicle and not the truck driver. Therefore, the contention vehemently raised by learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments to challenge this aspect of the prosecution story would be devoid of substance. 13. The registration number of the offending vehicle was available to the investigating agency as truck was recovered from the spot. I am also of the firm view that when an accident is caused with a vehicle like bus or truck which is recovered from the site of occurrence, it is not difficult to identify the driver of offending vehicle. The other evidence led to prove identity of the driver of offending vehicle is thus to be assessed in the light of above factor. 14. PW-9 Sampuran Singh, Clerk office of District Transport Officer, Patiala brought record of driving licence issued in the name of petitioner for scooter/LMV/HMV only, which was valid upto 22.05.2008. Copy of licence is Ex. The other evidence led to prove identity of the driver of offending vehicle is thus to be assessed in the light of above factor. 14. PW-9 Sampuran Singh, Clerk office of District Transport Officer, Patiala brought record of driving licence issued in the name of petitioner for scooter/LMV/HMV only, which was valid upto 22.05.2008. Copy of licence is Ex. PW-9/A. Even during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has not denied that he was driver of offending truck on the fateful night. The defence plea set up by the petitioner is that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo by Inder Pal Singh who was drunk. He further pleaded that Tata Sumo vehicle was wrongly hit against the truck on the left side on which the truck was going. There was, thus, no occasion for the petitioner to contend that he was not the driver of offending truck. As per prosecution story, the petitioner was arrested on 17.07.2005 i.e. just two days after the occurrence. 15. The other contention that investigating officer was not produced for cross-examination is insignificant as the only possible argument that rough site plan cannot be read into evidence which tells the location of both the vehicles after the accident and showing Tata Sumo to be lying on right side of the road. There are otherwise photographs of the scene of occurrence proved by photographer from which essential ingredient for offences that the truck driver was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle could be properly assessed. 16. There now comes the question of determining whether the truck driver was rash or negligent in driving the vehicle. The important would be the testimony of PW-3 the driver of Tata Sumo. He testified that the occurrence took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by the petitioner. PW-3 categorically denied the suggestion that he was over taking another vehicle on the road at excessive speed, that Tata Sumo came on the side of cleaner of the truck. But the witness was quite specific in stating that it was a head on collision and according to him the front portion of the truck was damaged. 17. The above statement of PW-3 is also materially supported by Sucha Singh PW-1, who knows driving motor vehicles. But the witness was quite specific in stating that it was a head on collision and according to him the front portion of the truck was damaged. 17. The above statement of PW-3 is also materially supported by Sucha Singh PW-1, who knows driving motor vehicles. The testimony of such a person who himself knows driving also assumes importance. According to PW-1, the Tata Sumo was at the speed of 60-70 km.p.h. The witness has been extensively cross-examined but no circumstance could be brought on record to bring any factor in favour of the petitioner. PW-1 clearly stated that the truck hit on the center of the Tata Sumo and thus, it was a case of head on collision. 18. The above controversy gets resolved from the mechanical test of both the vehicles. Sukhdarshan Singh PW-4, Instructor ITI Lalru visited the police Station on 15.07.2005 and mechanically inspected the offending truck No.HR-37-5348 and prepared report Ex. PW-4/A. The witness denied the suggestion that front side of the truck was not at all damaged. He also denied that cleaner’s side of the truck was damaged due to the impact of Tata Sumo. The whole defence set up by the petitioner would, therefore, crumble down. The mechanical test report is to the effect that entire mechanism of truck to be in order and the front of the truck was totally damaged. 19. PW-4 also mechanically tested Tata Sumo on the same day. The entire mechanism was damaged because of the accident. The vehicle was damaged from the front side including the total damage to the engine and cabin body. There is nothing to suggest that there was even a scratch on the window of the cleaner’s side of the truck. 20. Other important evidence comes from PW-8 Babli photographer who went to the spot on the same day and clicked the photographs Ex. PW-8/1 to PW-8/11 of scene of the occurrence, developed from the negatives Ex. PW-8/12 to PW- 8/22. There was even no suggestion to this witness about damage of the truck from the side of cleaner. The position of the vehicles after the accident can be gauged from the photographs from Ex. PW-8/1, PW-8/6 and PW-8/9. The total front portion of the Tata Sumo was damaged, as appears in photographs Ex. PW-8/6 and PW-8/9. PW-8/12 to PW- 8/22. There was even no suggestion to this witness about damage of the truck from the side of cleaner. The position of the vehicles after the accident can be gauged from the photographs from Ex. PW-8/1, PW-8/6 and PW-8/9. The total front portion of the Tata Sumo was damaged, as appears in photographs Ex. PW-8/6 and PW-8/9. The petitioner, thus was unable to bring any circumstance in support of the defence plea set up by him. He was supposed to be very cautious in driving heavy vehicle on a public highway especially during night time. Any attempt to contend that the driver of Tata Sumo was negligent is not borne out from record. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner also urged that the Appellate Court was wrong in its view that petitioner was holding licence for driving a scooter and not a heavy vehicle. Learned counsel is quite correct in raising this contention because though initially the driving licence may have been issued for driving a scooter but in the document Ex. PW9/A proved by Sampuran Singh PW-9, there is addition of heavy motor vehicle on 04.12.2000. That of course could not be a ground to hold the petitioner guilty of rash or negligent in driving the truck but there is overwhelming evidence to prove charges against the petitioner. 22. From the above discussion I find that the Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence and held the petitioner to be guilty of the charges framed against him and there is no scope of interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. There is, thus, no merit in the challenge to the conviction under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC recorded by the Courts below. 23. On the question of sentence I would rather say that the sentences awarded to the petitioner by the trial Court are much on the lower side. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone about 9 months of imprisonment. 24. From the discussion made above, I find no merit in the instant revision and the same is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------