JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) - Convict Bijender by filing this revision petition has assailed his conviction and sentence recorded by both the courts below. 2. According to prosecution version, the petitioner by driving trolla No. HR-46-9125 rashly and negligently hit the trolla against a Tata-407 four wheeler No. DBL-6999 coming from the opposite direction, resulting in death of four occupants of the four wheeler, besides injuries to other occupants thereof. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate vide judgment dated 18.8.2003 and order dated 20.8.2003 convicted the petitioner under sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 279 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 304-A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appeal against the said judgment and order preferred by the convict has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 7.7.2006. Hence this revision petition. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file including record of the trial court with their assistance. 5. Gian Chand PW9 and Sekh Bahaudin PW10, who were occupants of the four wheeler and eye witnesses of the accident, have broadly stated according to prosecution version. Rajinder Singh PW2 also stated about the accident caused by the trolla hitting the four wheeler but added that after the accident, he became unconscious. Medical evidence and evidence regarding investigation of the case has also been adduced. 6. On the other hand, the accused/convict in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure simply denied the prosecution version and claimed himself to be innocent but led no evidence in his defence. 7. Counsel for the petitioner contended that none of the occupants of front cabin of the four wheeler has been examined as witness whereas Gian Chand and Sekh Bahaudin, who have been examined as witnesses, were sitting in the back body of the four wheeler. It was also contended that the four wheeler was being driven at high speed as is evident from the extensive damage caused to one side of the four wheeler as depicted in the photographs. It was pointed out that on the other hand, speed of the offending trolla could not be high because it was admittedly fully loaded with cement. Counsel for the petitioner also prayed for leniency in quantum of sentence. 8. It was pointed out that on the other hand, speed of the offending trolla could not be high because it was admittedly fully loaded with cement. Counsel for the petitioner also prayed for leniency in quantum of sentence. 8. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposed and countered all the aforesaid contentions. 9. I have carefully considered the matter. Gian Chand and Sekh Bahaudin PWs have fully supported the prosecution case. Their veracity could not be impeached in their cross-examination. They had no enmity with the petitioner. Their statements are corroborated by medical evidence and other evidence on record including statement of Rajinder Singh PW2. Consequently, non-examination of other occupants of the four wheeler is not fatal to the prosecution case. On the other hand, large number of witnesses of the same fact are not required to be examined to prove a particular fact. Section 134 of the Evidence Act also stipulates that no particular number of witnesses shall be required for the proof of any fact. Consequently, merely because other occupants of the four wheeler have not been examined by the prosecution, it cannot be said that guilt of the petitioner is not proved. Non-examination of Investigating Officer of the case, as submitted by counsel for the petitioner, is also immaterial because factum of accident between the trolla and the four wheeler is not disputed. The Investigating Officer could not have stated anything about the fault of the driver of either of the two vehicles involved in the accident. 10. Merely because the four wheeler suffered extensive damage on one side in the accident would not be sufficient to infer that the four wheeler was being driven at high speed and the trolla at slow speed. On the other hand, extensive damage to the four wheeler could also occur even if the four wheeler was at slow speed and the trolla fully loaded with cement was being driven at high speed. The trolla even at comparatively lower speed would be having great momentum on account of heavy weight and collision of the trolla with four wheeler would cause extensive damage to the four wheeler. There is no evidence to depict that the trolla was being driven at slow speed. On the other hand, there is unrebutted evidence that the trolla was being driven rashly and negligently. 11. There is no evidence to depict that the trolla was being driven at slow speed. On the other hand, there is unrebutted evidence that the trolla was being driven rashly and negligently. 11. Both the courts below have analyzed the evidence in detail and have come to concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner. The said finding is not shown to be suffering from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence on record so as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. On the contrary, even on reappreciation of the evidence as aforesaid, no other reasonable conclusion except that of guilt of the petitioner can be arrived at. Conviction of the petitioner is well founded. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner is upheld. 12. As regards quantum of sentence, the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the trolla by the petitioner resulted in death of four innocent persons besides injuries to many other persons. Keeping in view the magnitude of the accident and the resultant loss of life and property, sentence awarded by the courts below also does not warrant reduction or modification. 13. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is dismissed being bereft of any merit. The petitioner who is on bail shall surrender to his bail bonds or shall be arrested to undergo the remaining period of sentence. ---------0.B.S.0------------