JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) : - Crl. Misc. No. 26878 of 2013 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Case : Convict Kashmir Singh has filed this revision petition assailing his conviction and sentence recorded by both the courts below. 2. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner, by rashly and negligently driving bus No. PB-06/1341, hit the bus against a stationary motorcycle and tractor trolley and then hit the deceased scooterist resulting in his death. The petitioner stands convicted under Section 304-A IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. 3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 4. The prosecution case has been supported by two eye-witnesses including the complainant. The very fact that the bus hit the stationary motorcycle and tractor trolley and then hit the scooterist is sufficient to hold that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently. There is also direct ocular evidence to this effect by the two eye-witnesses. Principle of res ipsa loquitur is also attracted. There is no defence evidence from the side of the petitioner, who was named in the FIR itself as driver of the offending bus. He left the bus at the spot after the accident and fled away. 5. Counsel for the petitioner raised issue of identity of the petitioner being driver of the offending bus. However, the said contention also cannot be accepted because the petitioner has been named in the FIR itself being driver of the offending bus. The FIR was lodged soon after the accident. The contention that Test Identification Parade (TIP) was held but was not proved, and therefore, identity of the petitioner is not established, cannot be accepted. The petitioner had already been named in the FIR. Both the eye-witnesses also identified the petitioner during trial. Consequently, identity of the petitioner being driver of the offending bus at the time of accident is fully established. 6. Both the courts below have come to concurrent finding regarding 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 so as to warrant interference in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction. Conviction of the petitioner is well founded and well reasoned. 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 so as to warrant interference in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction. Conviction of the petitioner is well founded and well reasoned. The eye-witnesses had no enmity to implicate the petitioner in a false case. The petitioner has also not led any evidence in his defence. Accordingly, there is no ground to interfere with the finding of conviction recorded by the courts below, which is accordingly upheld. 7. There is also no ground for reducing the sentence because sentence of imprisonment for one year, besides of fine of Rs.500/-, cannot be said to be excessive for offence under Section 304-A IPC. The said sentence does not warrant any reduction. 8. Resultantly, I find no merit in the instant petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------