JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment dated 25.2.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge(Forest) Shimla, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 9-S/10 of 08/2005, affirming the judgment dated 18.5.2005, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.II, Shimla in Criminal Case No.10/2 of 2000, whereby the petitioner (in short ‘accused’) was convicted under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and sentenced as under:- 279 IPC To pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for one month. 337 IPC To pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for one month. 338 IPC S.I. for three months. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the pleadings are that on 16.5.1999, Jatinder Kumar along with his friends namely Kuber Chand(complainant), Gian Chand, Ramesh Chand, Kamal Thakur and others came to Mashobra to see Mashobra Seepur fair and were purchasing articles from the market. At about 7:00 PM, when they were proceeding from Mashobra towards Gabble Hotel side to board the bus, a truck bearing registration No.HP-51-0590 came from back side i.e. Mashobra side in a high speed and collided with Jatinder Kumar, as a result of which, he fell down on the road and suffered injuries. He was given first aid at Mashobra and thereafter taken to IGMC Shimla for treatment, wherein he was found to have suffered grievous as well as simple injuries. Complainant Kuber Chand got recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C vide Ex.PW8/A, on the basis of which, FIR Ex.PW 8/B was registered against the accused. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, police conducted the investigation in the matter and came to the conclusion that the present petitioner-accused have committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC and accordingly, after completion of the investigation, presented the challan in the competent Court of law. 3. Learned trial Court after satisfying itself that a prima-facie case exists against the accused, framed charges under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC against the accused, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In the present case, prosecution with a view to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt examined as many as 10 witnesses. 3. Learned trial Court after satisfying itself that a prima-facie case exists against the accused, framed charges under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC against the accused, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In the present case, prosecution with a view to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt examined as many as 10 witnesses. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was also recorded, wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence. 5. Thereafter, learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence made available on record by the prosecution found accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused, as per the description given hereinabove. 6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/order dated 18.5.2005/26.5.2005, passed by learned trial Court, present petitioner-accused filed an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Sessions Judge(Forest) Shimla, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 25.2.2009. Hence, the present criminal revision petition, praying therein for quashing and setting-aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by learned trial Court and further upheld by learned Sessions Judge(Forest), Shimla. 7. Ms. Seema Guleria, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that the judgment passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable as the same are not based upon correct appreciation of the evidence available on record. Ms. Guleria forcibly contended that the judgment passed by both the courts below are wrong, illegal, unjust, contrary to true facts and circumstances of the case and as such, needs to be rectified in accordance with the law. She also contended that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective and as such, great prejudice has been caused to the present petitioner-accused. During arguments, she made this Court to peruse the evidence produced on record by the prosecution to suggest that there were material contradictions, variations and discrepancies in the statements made by the prosecution witnesses and as such, same could not be made basis for convicting and punishing the present petitioner-accused. She also forcibly contended that no independent witness was associated by the prosecution to prove its case. Ms. She also forcibly contended that no independent witness was associated by the prosecution to prove its case. Ms. Guleria, contended that as per prosecution story, accident occurred in Mashobra Bazar, where independent witness could be easily available and as such, non association of the independent witness was sufficient for discarding the story put forth on behalf of the prosecution. She also contended that since the entire case of the prosecution was based upon the interested witnesses, both the courts below ought to have exercised due care and caution while dealing with the statements of these witnesses, especially when there was no independent witness. Ms. Guleria, while concluding her arguments, vehemently argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as there is no cogent and convincing evidence available on record, which could compel learned Court below to record the conviction against the present petitioner accused. She also prayed that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the impugned judgment passed by both the Courts below are correct in law, in that eventuality petitioner deserves to be given benefit of probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. She stated that since this accident occurred in the year, 1999 and more than 17 years have passed and during this period petitioner has already suffered lot of mental agony and harassment. Moreover, he is first offender and there is no case pending against him in any court of law, besides this he has a family to support and, as such, prayed for benefit of probation of Offenders Act. 8. Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, supported the judgments passed by both the Courts below and stated that no interference, whatsoever, of this Court is warranted in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Thakur, with a view to substantiate aforesaid arguments, invited the attention of this Court to the impugned judgment passed by both the Courts below and stated that Courts below while recording the conviction against the accused have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and as such, present petition deserve to be dismissed. During his arguments, he made this Court to travel through the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, to demonstrate that these witnesses have been very candid, specific and straight forward in narrating sequence of events happened at the time of accident. During his arguments, he made this Court to travel through the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, to demonstrate that these witnesses have been very candid, specific and straight forward in narrating sequence of events happened at the time of accident. He also stated that defence has not been able to shatter their testimonies and as such, both the Courts below have rightly held accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC. While opposing the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of benefit of Section 4 of the Probation and Offenders Act, Mr. Thakur, further submitted that no leniency can be shown to a person, who was admittedly driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Mr. Thakur, stated that it stands proved on record that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently by the accused at the time of the accident. He also invited the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab versus Saurabh Bakshi 2015 (5) SCC 182 ; wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that courts below while dealing with the accident cases should exercise great constraint while taking lenient view against reckless drivers, who drives rashly and negligently. Mr. Thakur, also submitted that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court has very limited powers to reappreciate the evidence available on record. Learned Additional Advocate General, has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case State of Kerala versus Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999)2 SCC 452 , wherein it has been held as under:- “In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.” 9. In the aforesaid background, he prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. 10. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have carefully gone through the record made available. 11. True, it is that while exercising the power under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, this Court has very limited power to re-appreciate the evidence available on record. But in the present case, where accused has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, this Court solely with a view to ascertain that the judgments passed by both the Courts below are not perverse and same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence available on record, undertook an exercise to critically examine the evidence available on record to reach fair and just decision in the case. 12. As far as scope of power of this Court while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another Versus Krishnaveni and another, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Case 241; has held that in case Court notices that there is a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality or sentence or order. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “8. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “8. The object of Section 483 and the purpose behind conferring the revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to mete out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power under Section 397(1). However, when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/ incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order.” 13. Since this Court had an occasion to peruse the entire evidence available on record while hearing arguments having been made by learned counsel for the parties. It can be safely concluded that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of the accident, truck was being driven by the accused and as such, defence taken by the petitioner-accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C has no force. Moreover, all the prosecution witnesses identified the accused and categorically stated that the accused was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. Further perusal of record suggest that PW-2, Ramesh Chand and PW-3, Gian Chand can be termed as eye witnesses to the alleged accident because at the time of the accident aforesaid witnesses were present alongwith PW-1. PW-1, Jatinder Kumar stated that at the time of the accident, he was near the employment Exchange, Mashobra, when a truck bearing registration No.HP-51-0590 came from behind and dashed against him, as a result of which, he suffered injuries at his stomach, arm and other parts of the body. PW-1, also stated that after the accident, he was taken to IGMC Shimla, for treatment. In his cross-examination, he specifically denied the suggestion that he suffered injuries because of the falling of a stone from retaining wall. PW-1, also stated that after the accident, he was taken to IGMC Shimla, for treatment. In his cross-examination, he specifically denied the suggestion that he suffered injuries because of the falling of a stone from retaining wall. He also denied the suggestion that he had not seen the accused driving the truck. Similarly, PW-2, Ramesh Chand and PW-3, Gian Chand also reiterated the same stand as taken by PW-1. In their cross-examination, they categorically stated that a truck came from behind and collided with PW-1, as a result of which, PW-1 sustained injuries on his stomach, arm and other parts of the body. They also stated that PW-1 after the accident was taken to IGMC Shimla for treatment. In cross-examination, they categorically denied the suggestion that Jatinder Kumar suffered injuries because of falling of stone. PW-3, in his cross-examination, specifically denied the suggestion that he alongwith Jatinder Kumar etc. had given beatings to the accused and in order to save themselves they have given wrong statements. PW-2 and PW-3, specifically denied the suggestion that Jatinder Kumar jumped over a stone when he saw vehicle, as a result of which, he suffered injuries. 14. Conjoint reading of the statements of aforesaid witnesses, clearly suggest that at the time of the accident Jatinder Kumar sustained injuries on his stomach, arm and other parts of the body. Careful perusal of the cross-examination of these witnesses, nowhere suggest that the defence was able to shatter testimonies of these prosecution witnesses, who were candid enough to state that PW-1 suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner-accused. Factum with regard to the injuries suffered by PW-1, stands duly proved on record with the statement of PW-6, Dr. Niraj Mittal and PW-9, Dr. Vanita Sharma. They have categorically stated that PW-1 was examined by them and they found simple as well as grievous injuries on his person. Though, perusal of statement given by PW-9, Dr. Vanita Sharma, suggest that injuries No.1, 3 and 4 to 8 were simple in nature and injury No.2 was grievous and same were caused with blunt weapon. But the defence has not been able to shatter the testimony of alleged eye witnesses, who very categorically stated that Jatinder Kumar sustained injuries on his stomach, arm and other parts of the body due to the accident. But the defence has not been able to shatter the testimony of alleged eye witnesses, who very categorically stated that Jatinder Kumar sustained injuries on his stomach, arm and other parts of the body due to the accident. Though, the defence put suggestion to the aforesaid prosecution witnesses that Jatinder Kumar did not suffer injuries due to the accident, rather they had quarrelled with each other but aforesaid prosecution witnesses stuck to their statements made in examination-in chief and denied the aforesaid suggestion in toto. Undoubtedly, in cross-examination, PW-6 admitted that the aforesaid injuries can be caused by giving a stick blow but since defence has not been able to prove on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that jatinder Kumar suffered injuries due to beatings, if any, given to him, defence cannot be allowed to take advantage of admission, if any, made by the aforesaid witnesses in their cross-examination. In the present case, though suggestions have been put to the prosecution witnesses by the defence that Jatinder Kumar suffered injuries due to scuffle/quarrel but it is not proved on record that with whom Jatinder Kumar had a scuffle and as such, versions of aforesaid witnesses cannot be solely rejected on the ground of medical evidence rendered by PW-6 and PW-9, wherein it has been stated that injuries have been caused with blunt weapon. 15. Since aforesaid prosecution witnesses, as has been discussed above in details, are material witnesses, rather eye witnesses to the alleged incident. This Court, after perusing the depositions made by aforesaid witnesses is fully satisfied and convinced that they have made truthful disclosure to the Court with regard to the sequence of event happened at the time of the accident and as such, this Court sees no force in the contention put forth on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Rather, careful perusal of the statements of prosecution witnesses, as referred above clearly suggest that these witnesses have been very candid, specific and straight forward while deposing that PW-1 suffered injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck at the time of the accident. Rather, careful perusal of the statements of prosecution witnesses, as referred above clearly suggest that these witnesses have been very candid, specific and straight forward while deposing that PW-1 suffered injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck at the time of the accident. PW-10, Sunder Lal, owner of the truck, also admitted that the accused is driver of his truck and as such, this Court has all reasons to agree with the judgments passed by both the Court below that at the relevant time accused was driving the truck in question in rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, PW-1 suffered injuries. 16. Moreover, defence has not been able to prove that aforesaid prosecution witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate the present petitioner-accused because perusal of the cross-examination of these witnesses, nowhere suggest that any suggestion, worth the name, with regard to motive, if any, to falsely implicate the accused was ever put to these prosecution witnesses. Hence, it can be safely concluded that these prosecution witnesses made truthful disclosure to the Court with regard to the accident. 17. Now, adverting to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that the petitioner-accused being first offender is entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. She also pleaded that more than 12 years have passed after passing of the judgment dated 18.5.2005 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.II, Shimla and during this period accused has already suffered mental agony due to the pendency of the appeal. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in Yudhbir Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh 1998(1)S.L.J. 58, wherein it has been held as under:- “9. The only mitigating circumstance that appears to be there is that the time gap of about six years between the date of occurrence as well as the date of decision of this revision petitioner. During this entire period sword of present case looming over the head of the petitioner was always there. That being so, this court is of the view that instead of sending the petitioner to jail as ordered by the courts below, he is given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, it is ordered that he shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. That being so, this court is of the view that instead of sending the petitioner to jail as ordered by the courts below, he is given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, it is ordered that he shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today to keep peace and to be of good behavior for a period of one year from the date of execution of the bond before the court below as well as not to commit any such offence. In addition to being given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, petitioner is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- each to PWs Baldev Singh and Dilbagh Singh injured as compensation. Shri R.K. Gautam submitted that this amount of compensation be deposited with the trial Court on or before 31.8.1997, who will thereafter pay the same to said persons.” 18. On the other hand, Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, invited attention of this Court to the judgment passed in the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh versus State of Haryana, 2000 (5) SCC 82 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :- 13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the PO Act. While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly, that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of the vehicle he cannot escape from a jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles. 14. Thus, bestowing our serious consideration on the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant we express our inability to lean towards the benevolent provision in Section 4 of the PO Act. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 19. This Court also cannot loose sight of the stern observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab versus Saurabh Bakshi, 2015 (5) SCC 182 . While dealing with the accident case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken serious view of reduction of sentences by the courts below. Their lordships in the aforesaid judgment in paras No. 1, 14, 24 and 25 have held as under:- “1. Long back, an eminent thinker and author, Sophocles, had to say: “Law can never be enforced unless fear supports them.” Though the aforesaid statement was made centuries back, it has its pertinence, in a way, with the enormous vigour, in today’s society. It is the duty of every right thinking citizen to show veneration to law so that an orderly, civilized and peaceful society emerges. It has to be borne in mind that law is averse to any kind of chaos. It is totally intolerant of anarchy. It is the duty of every right thinking citizen to show veneration to law so that an orderly, civilized and peaceful society emerges. It has to be borne in mind that law is averse to any kind of chaos. It is totally intolerant of anarchy. If any one defies law, he has to face the wrath of law, depending on the concept of proportionality that the law recognizes. It can never be forgotten that the purpose of criminal law legislated by the competent legislatures, subject to judicial scrutiny within constitutionally established parameters, is to protect the collective interest and save every individual that forms a constituent of the collective from unwarranted hazards. It is sometimes said in an egocentric and uncivilised manner that law cannot bind the individual actions which are perceived as flaws by the large body of people, but, the truth is and has to be that when the law withstands the test of the constitutional scrutiny in a democracy, the individual notions are to be ignored. At times certain crimes assume more accent and gravity depending on the nature and impact of the crime on the society. No court should ignore the same being swayed by passion of mercy. It is the obligation of the court to constantly remind itself that the right of the victim, and be it said, on certain occasions the person aggrieved as well as the society at large can be victims, never be marginalized. In this context one may recapitulate the saying of Justice Benjamin N. Cardizo “Justice, though due to the accused, is due to the accuser too”. And, therefore, the requisite norm has to be the established principles laid down in precedents. It is neither to be guided by a sense of sentimentality nor to be governed by prejudices. 14. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision in Balwinder Singh (supra) wherein the High Court had allowed the revision and reduced the quantum of sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for the offences punishable under Section 304A, 337, 279 of IPC by reducing the sentence of imprisonment already undergone that is 15 days. The court referred to the decision in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana and reproduced two paragraphs which we feel extremely necessary for reproduction:- (Balwinder Singh case, SCC pp. 186-87, para12) “12…1. The court referred to the decision in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana and reproduced two paragraphs which we feel extremely necessary for reproduction:- (Balwinder Singh case, SCC pp. 186-87, para12) “12…1. When automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic. 13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly, that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of the vehicle he cannot escape from a jail sentence. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of the vehicle he cannot escape from a jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.” (Dalbir Singh case, SCC pp. 84-85 & 87, paras 1 &13)” 24. Needless to say, the principle of sentencing recognizes the corrective measures but there are occasions when the deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon the facts of the case. In our opinion, it is a fit case where we are constrained to say that the High Court has been swayed away by the passion of mercy in applying the principle that payment of compensation is a factor for reduction of sentence to 24 days. It is absolutely in the realm of misplaced sympathy. It is, in a way mockery of justice. Because justice is “the crowning glory”, “the sovereign mistress” and “queen of virtue” as Cicero had said. Such a crime blights not only the lives of the victims but of many others around them. It ultimately shatters the faith of the public in judicial system. In our view, the sentence of one year as imposed by the trial Magistrate which has been affirmed by the appellate court should be reduced to six months. 25. Before parting with the case we are compelled to observe that India has a disreputable record of road accidents. There is a nonchalant attitude among the drivers. They feel that they are the “Emperors of all they survey”. Drunkenness contributes to careless driving where the other people become their prey. The poor feel that their lives are not safe, the pedestrians think of uncertainty and the civilized persons drive in constant fear but still apprehensive about the obnoxious attitude of the people who project themselves as “larger than life”. In such obtaining circumstances, we are bound to observe that the law-makers should scrutinize, relook and revisit the sentencing policy in Section 304-A IPC, so with immense anguish.” 20. In such obtaining circumstances, we are bound to observe that the law-makers should scrutinize, relook and revisit the sentencing policy in Section 304-A IPC, so with immense anguish.” 20. In totality of facts and circumstances as emerges from the record, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused, who has been rightly held guilty for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code by the learned court below and, as such, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the judgments passed by both the courts below as the same are based on correct appreciation of the evidence available on record. 21. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 22. However, in view of the aforesaid prayer having been made by Ms. Guleria, learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to extension of benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, this Court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, deems it fit to grant benefit of Section 4 of the probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, Registry is directed to call for the report of the Probation Officer, Shimla, District Shimla, HP on or before 26th September, 2016. Registry to list this matter on 30th September, 2016.