JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Convict Gurmukh 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, while driving mini bus rashly and negligently, hit the bus into motorcycle from behind resulting in death of motorcyclist. The petitioner stands convicted under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) and has been sentenced to imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. 3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that complainant Bhupinder Singh – Constable stated in the witness-box that the motorcyclist was coming from the side of Satluj Chowk and if this statement is read in conjunction with site plan (Annexure P-2), it would falsify the prosecution version. The contention cannot be accepted. It is the prosecution version that the motorcyclist was coming towards the Satluj Chowk and the bus hit him from behind. The very fact that the bus came from T-Point lights and hit the motorcyclist from behind is sufficient to raise the presumption that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently. Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur comes into operation. The aforesaid presumption has not been rebutted by the petitioner in any manner. On the other hand, there is also direct ocular evidence of Constable Bhupinder Singh that the petitioner was driving the bus rashly and negligently and caused the accident. Constable Bhupinder Singh had no axe to grind by implicating the petitioner falsely and by deposing against him falsely. 5. Both the courts below have analysed the evidence and have come to concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner. The said finding is not suffering from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence so as to call for interference in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction. Conviction of the petitioner is well founded and is accordingly upheld. 6. Counsel for the petitioner prayed for reduction in sentence, submitting that the petitioner is ready to pay some compensation to the heirs of the deceased in addition to the compensation they might have received in motor accident claim. The contention cannot be accepted. Sentence of imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 304-A IPC cannot be said to be excessive so as to warrant reduction. The contention cannot be accepted. Sentence of imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 304-A IPC cannot be said to be excessive so as to warrant reduction. This Court cannot become party to blood money being paid to the heirs of the deceased by the petitioner for securing release of the petitioner. 7. The instant revision petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------