JUDGMENT Admit. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. finally. 2. The revision applicant-original accused (hereinafter referred to as "accused") has filed this revision as he has been convicted by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kannad in Criminal Case No.219/2009 for offence punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. For offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, he has been convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer S.I. for 10 days; for offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, he has been convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for 60 days; for offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, he has been convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer S.I. for 10 days. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. The applicant filed Criminal Appeal No.86/2010 before the Sessions Court which came to be dismissed on 24.3.2014. Thus, the present criminal revision application. 4. The case of prosecution in brief is that, on 9.1.2005, at about 9.30 a.m., complainant Kishor Gulabrao Shikare was proceeding by bullock cart on road which goes from Kannad towards Chapaner. He was carrying wheels in his bullock cart for repairs. He reached near field of one Kishor Pawar. At that time, matador bearing No.MH-19-4522 driven by the accused came from behind and dashed against the bullock cart. The bullock cart got pushed in the pit nearby and the Matador proceeded further and fell in the pit and in the accident, the Cleaner on the Matador Shaikh Mujaheed got crushed when the vehicle, while falling in the pit, tilted on the Cleaner side. The complainant filed the F.I.R. at Kannad Police Station against the applicant-accused. Crime No.7/2005 was registered. Investigation was taken up by P.S.I. A.S. Syed. Spot panchanama and inquest panchanama were recorded. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Charge sheet came to be filed against the applicant- accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Accused pleaded not guilty and the prosecution adduced oral and documentary evidence. The trial was completed and the accused came to be convicted and sentenced as stated above and the appeal filed was also dismissed. 5. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Charge sheet came to be filed against the applicant- accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Accused pleaded not guilty and the prosecution adduced oral and documentary evidence. The trial was completed and the accused came to be convicted and sentenced as stated above and the appeal filed was also dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for applicant-accused has submitted that, although there is evidence of complainant P.W.1 Kishor Shikare and P.W.3 Sheshrao regarding the incident, these witnesses did not depose that the vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner and only the investigating officer deposed that in the investigation it was found that the vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner. He was not witness to the incident. It was argued that, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 does not establish that the applicant-accused was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently. Counsel has taken me through the oral and documentary evidence to stress his point. The argument of the learned counsel for applicant is that, the judgments of the courts below do not show basis for the Courts to conclude that the vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner. The counsel has taken me through spot panchanama (Exhibit 30) to state that as the vehicle fell on Cleaner side, the Cleaner had expired. 6. Learned counsel for applicant relied on the case of Kisan Pandurang Pachange Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 261 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 736] to submit that, in that matter, the High Court had in revision, reappreciated the evidence of witness to come to conclusion that the evidence given by the witness did not give details of rash and negligent manner of driving. It was argued that, the judgment shows that, merely driving vehicle in high speed does not amount to rash and negligent driving. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the case of Mohammed Sannaulla Gausmuddin Amir Sab Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2007(1) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 402. It is argued that in that matter, the application was admitted in the High Court in 1998 and thus, when after considerable time the matter had come up, the Hon'ble Court had taken a lenient view converting the sentence of imprisonment from one year to 3 months although it was also a case of offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 7. 7. Per contra, learned A.P.P. submitted that, in evidence, the vehicle was driven has to be seen and that if the evidence is appreciated, it is clear that while the bullock cart was proceeding, the tempo came from behind and dashed. According to learned A.P.P., it sufficiently shows rash as well as negligent driving. Learned A.P.P. referred to the inquest panchanama of the deceased which is at Exhibit 31 to submit that accident was so severe that the brain of the victim had come out. Learned A.P.P. also referred to the details of the damage which occurred to the Matador, the report is at Exhibit 37. It is argued that, the extensive damage itself shows how the accident took place and the circumstances which speak for themselves. According to learned A.P.P., in the matter of "Kisan Pandurang Pachange", [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 736) (supra), the High Court had in para 12 reproduced the evidence of the witness and looking to that evidence, naturally High Court came to the conclusion that rash and negligent driving was not proved. However, according to learned A.P.P., in the present matter, evidence of P.W.1 and P. W.3 and documents sufficiently go to prove rash and negligent driving. Learned A.P.P. submits that there are concurrent findings by both the courts below and there is no reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the courts below. 8. I have gone through the record. The present matter is a revision petition and there are concurrent findings of facts, which cannot be disturbed unless on the face of it perversity is shown. Keeping this in view, if the evidence is examined, I do not find that perversity as such could be concluded. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that he was driving the bullock cart and the tempo came from behind and dashed against the bullock cart which went in the pit. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 shows that then the tempo itself proceeded and fell in to the pit. Evidence of P.W.1 is that the applicant-accused was driving the said tempo. The evidence shows that he was knowing the applicant-accused since the day of incident. The judgment of the appellate Court shows that the accused, at the time of evidence of this witness had filed application for exemption at Exhibit 19 and cross-examined the witness. Thus, the identity was not being disputed. F.I.R. Exh. The evidence shows that he was knowing the applicant-accused since the day of incident. The judgment of the appellate Court shows that the accused, at the time of evidence of this witness had filed application for exemption at Exhibit 19 and cross-examined the witness. Thus, the identity was not being disputed. F.I.R. Exh. 22 shows that in an hour of the incident P.W.1 filed the complaint and in the F.I.R. itself he named the applicant-accused. Thus, apparently when incident occurred, P.W.1 had the opportunity to see when the tempo landed in the pit that accused was driving the same. The evidence of P.W.3 also shows that he was driving his motorcycle which was moving behind the tempo when the incident took place. The witness P.W.3 reached the spot soon after the incident and he also deposed that the applicant-accused was driving the vehicle. In the cross-examination of P.W.3 it was tried to put to him that he was behind and so he could not see what was happening in front. The witness was moving on motorcycle behind the tempo and reached the spot soon after the incident and has deposed that accused was driving. The evidence cannot be simply ignored. 9. As far as regards the effort of learned counsel to search words of "rash and negligent driving" in the mouth of P.W.1 and P.W.3, I do not find that there is any substance. The condition of the vehicle after the incident, as recorded, in the spot panchanama and the manner in which the victim died on the spot where his brain matter had come out, having been crushed under the vehicle, which while falling in the pit, crushed him on cleaner side, are circumstances and facts which speak for themselves. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 read with spot panchanama spells out in clear terms that the applicant was driving the vehicle not only in rash but also in negligent manner. When there was slow moving bullock cart on the road, if the tempo came from behind and gave dash, the fact itself indicates rash and negligent driving. The spot panchanama shows that it was a tar road 15 ft. broad with "kaccha" portions of 5 ft. on both sides. It is not a case that there was other vehicle coming from front. The spot panchanama shows that it was a tar road 15 ft. broad with "kaccha" portions of 5 ft. on both sides. It is not a case that there was other vehicle coming from front. Even after dash to bullock cart the vehicle could not be controlled and landed up itself in the pit. Principle of "res ipsa loquitur" gets attracted to hold rash as well as negligent driving. I do not find any reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. 10. As far as regards the claim that lenience be shown to the applicant-accused the counsel submitted that the applicant-accused is poor and is the sole earning member and he has a family to take care having wife and 3 daughters and 1 son who are studying. It was submitted that, family of the victim Shaikh Mujahid received compensation in Motor Accident Claim Petition. Counsel submitted that the applicant-accused deserves to be given leniency as there is no other offence against him, and he is repenting. 25th April. 2014. 11. Not on Board. Taken on Board. Heard counsel for Applicant as well as A.P.P. for State. In this matter Oral Judgment was delivered on 23rd April, 2014. After judgment as above, I had in the Oral Judgment declined to take lenient view and the Revision was directed to stand as dismissed. 12. The transcript of the oral Judgment is yet to be signed. The learned counsel for Applicant submits that this Court could, keeping in view financial condition of applicant- accused, increase the fine to some reasonable level which can be paid as compensation to the father of the victim. and the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the Applicant may be reduced. The learned A.P.P. does not object. 13. Looking to the submissions now made before me, and as the transcript is yet to be signed, in interest of justice, and as counsel for applicant- accused and A.P.P. agree. The oral judgment is continued and I pass the following further order. 14. The inquest panchnama Exhibit 31 shows that victim was hardly 19 years old and died in unfortunate incident. Applicant-accused has no other criminal case against him and his financial condition and remorse also needs to be considered. Interest of justice needs to be balanced between the accused and the victim. The applicant-accused is already in jail. 15. 14. The inquest panchnama Exhibit 31 shows that victim was hardly 19 years old and died in unfortunate incident. Applicant-accused has no other criminal case against him and his financial condition and remorse also needs to be considered. Interest of justice needs to be balanced between the accused and the victim. The applicant-accused is already in jail. 15. For the reasons mentioned above, the Revision Application is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence as imposed on the Applicant-accused in the trial Court under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. is maintained. The conviction of Applicant-accused for offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. is maintained. His sentence is, however, modified and it is directed that for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. the Applicant-accused shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand). In default of fine, he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. If the fine amount of Rs.75,000/- is paid, the same shall be paid as compensation to P.W. 4 Sk. Rajjak, the father of victim Shaikh Mujahid. Present Revision stands disposed of accordingly. Application partly allowed.