JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. This revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 11.07.2007 passed by learned Special Judge, Shimla, in Criminal Appeal No. 29-S/10 of 2006, vide which it has upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, in case No. 109/2 of 2004. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 27.09.2003 at around 10.00 A.M., one Surjan Singh was driving maruti car bearing registration No. HP-62-376 which was being driven from Malyana. Vidya Dutt, Kedar Nath, Hakam Chand, Shiv Dayal and Sonia were the other occupants in the car. When the said car reached at the distance of about half kilometer from Mehli, at Shakrala, a truck bearing registration No.HP-10-2457 came from the opposite side in a very high speed, which was being driven by the accused in rash and negligent manner. The accused brought the truck to the extreme of the right side of the road i.e. his wrong side and collided the same with the car being driven by Surjan Singh. Resultantly, the car rolled down below the road and the truck also went off the road and fell on the said car. One Kanshi Ram who was walking on the side of the road also became a victim of the said collusion of the vehicles and he expired immediately. At about 10.15 A.M., an information to this effect was received at Police Post Kaumpti and ASI Ami Chand Incharge P.P. Kausmpti rushed to the spot alongwith other police officials. When the police team reached there it gathered that four occupants of the car had died at the spot. A Rukka Ext. PW6/A was sent to the Police Station on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW6/B was registered. Three of the injured persons were sent for medical examination. The accused had also sustained injuries and he was also medically examined. The dead bodies of the persons who died in the said accident were brought to the hospital and their postmortem were conducted. The photographs of the site were taken. Site plan was also prepared. Motor Mechanic Gian Chand inspected both the vehicles. On these basis, notice of accusation for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. was put to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. The photographs of the site were taken. Site plan was also prepared. Motor Mechanic Gian Chand inspected both the vehicles. On these basis, notice of accusation for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. was put to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. The defence of the accused was denial simplicitor and according to him tie rod of the vehicle gave way, as a result of which, the truck became uncontrollable and had gone off the road. 4. PW-1 Vidya Dutt has deposed that on 27.09.2003 he was traveling in the car of Surjan Singh, which was being driven by Surjan Singh. The vehicle i.e. maruti car was being driven from Malyana towards Shimla. As per him, when they reached between Malyana and Mehli, a truck came from Mehli side and it hit the car. The number of the truck was HP-10-2457. The car went off the road as a result of the collusion and he became unconscious as a result of the accident. As per him, the accident took place because of the fault of the truck. 5. PW-2 Vipan Sharma has stated that on the fateful day at around 10.00 A.M. he came to know that 20 Mtr. ahead an accident had taken place between a truck and car and he went to the spot and found that three persons had fallen down and four dead bodies were also taken out from the car. He has also deposed that at the site of the accident, the road is quite wide and it is apparent from the spot that the accident has taken place on account of the negligence of the truck diver. He has also deposed that the truck had also went off the cliff and it had taken the car alongwith it. 6. PW-3 Santosh Kumar took the photographs of the spot. PW-4 Anil Kumar is the owner of the truck involved in the accident. PW-5 K.D. Khan was posted as Sub Inspector and he had taken down the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 7. 6. PW-3 Santosh Kumar took the photographs of the spot. PW-4 Anil Kumar is the owner of the truck involved in the accident. PW-5 K.D. Khan was posted as Sub Inspector and he had taken down the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 7. PW-6 Amin Chand has deposed that he received a message that an accident had taken place near Mehli of a truck and a car and when he reached the spot, he saw that both the truck and the car after the accident had gone off the road. According to him, at the spot five people were taken out from the car and four people died at the spot. The road was 22 feet 9 inches wide ‘Pakki’ and 8 feet ‘Kachi’ at the spot. 8. PW-9 H.C. Gian Chand is the Mechanic, who had carried out the inspection of the vehicles involved in the accident. He has deposed that there was no mechanical defect in either of the vehicles. He has further deposed that steering system, breaking system and suspension system etc. of the truck and the car had been damaged on account of the accident and these defects had not attributed to the accident because these defects were result of the accident. 9. On the basis of the material so produced on record, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 15.05.2006 held the accused guilty and convicted him for offences punishable under Selections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. 10. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the road at the spot was quite wide which was evident from the site map and there was no occasion for the accused to collide his truck with the car, had he been careful in driving the same and it was apparent that the accused was highly negligent and it was for this reason that the accident has taken place. The learned trial Court further concluded that it was clear from the postmortem reports that the deceased had died due to hemorrhagic shock, which clearly suggested that the impact was so vital that there was no chance of escape. It further concluded that even the MLCs of the injured persons reveled that the said persons had suffered vital injuries on their part of the body and it was their sheer luck that they did not perish in the accident. It further concluded that even the MLCs of the injured persons reveled that the said persons had suffered vital injuries on their part of the body and it was their sheer luck that they did not perish in the accident. Accordingly, the learned trial court held that the evidence led by the prosecution was true, cogent, satisfactory and points out inevitably and exclusively that the accused was highly rash and negligent in driving the truck, as a result of which, he lost control of the same and went to the extreme wrong side of the road and struck against the incoming car resulting in the accident. It held that it can be safely concluded that the prosecution had been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. 11. The said conviction and sentence was challenged by the accused by way of appeal, which was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 11.07.2007. The learned Appellate Court held that as per the prosecution evidence on record that there was no infirmity with the judgment passed by the learned trial Court which held that the truck was being driven on the wrong side, whereas the car was being driven on its correct side and the accident had in fact taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver i.e. the accused, who had crossed over from his left side to the right side of the road and hit the car coming from the opposite side. The learned Appellate Court further held that the accident and deaths were attributable directly to the accused/appellant and it could not be said that that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court were de horse the evidence. 12. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has argued that both the judgments passed by the learned trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court are perverse and liable to be quashed and set aside. The said findings arrived at by the learned Courts below are neither borne out from the record nor the prosecution was able to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Mr. Bawa has strenuously argued that there were major discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses which have been ignored by both the learned Courts below. The said findings arrived at by the learned Courts below are neither borne out from the record nor the prosecution was able to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Mr. Bawa has strenuously argued that there were major discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses which have been ignored by both the learned Courts below. According to him, PW-1 was very vague as far as the narration of the cause of the accident was concerned and his deposition was not inspiring. He has further argued that similarly the deposition of the mechanic, who had inspected the vehicles did not further or support the case of the prosecution. He has further argued that in the FIR it was mentioned that there were four dead bodies in the car and three injured persons, meaning thereby there were seven persons in the car. According to Mr. Bawa, the accident was not a result of the rash and negligent driving of the accused but it was because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car coupled with the over-loading of the said vehicle. Mr. Bawa also pointed out that the site map Ext. PW6/C was also reflective of the fact that the accident had taken place due to mechanical failure of the truck and was not on account of the rash and negligent driving of the accused. He has also pointed out various discrepancies in the statements of other prosecution witnesses like PW-2 Vipan Sharma and PW-6 Amin Chand and has argued that the learned trial Court had erred in convicting the accused. Accordingly, he prayed that the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused be set aside. 13. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, submitted that there was neither any perversity nor any infirmity with the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below. According to him, the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the accused which had resulted in the loss of the deceased lives. Thus, Mr. Chauhan submitted that the conviction of the accused warranted no interference by this Court. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case. 15. Thus, Mr. Chauhan submitted that the conviction of the accused warranted no interference by this Court. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case. 15. In my considered view, the prosecution has been able to establish on the basis of the depositions of its witnesses as well as on the basis of the material produced on record by it that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner/accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to cast any shadow on the credibility of the case of the prosecution. It stands proved from the material on record that the ill-fated maruti car was coming from Malyana to Mehli side, whereas the truck being driven by the accused was being driven towards Malyana side. It is clear from the site plan Ext. PW6/C as well as from the photographs that the truck being driven by the accused left the left side of the road and entered the right side of the road towards the valley area and it hit the ill-fated maruti car which was being driven on its correct side i.e. left side. Otherwise, there was no occasion for the truck to have fell off the road into the cliff over the car when the said cliff happens to be on the extreme right hand side of the road from Mehli to Malyana. This demonstrates that the truck was being driven rashly and negligent on its wrong side. Therefore, it crossed over to the right side and hit the car resulting in the death of four persons. Further, the defence which has been taken by the petitioner at the trial that the tie rod of the vehicle gave way, as a result of which, the truck became uncontrollable and had gone off the road is belied from the mechanical report which is on record as Ext. PW6/F. This mechanical report no where mentions that either there was any mechanical defect in the truck which resulted in the accident or that the rod of the vehicle had broken. On the contrary, perusal of the said mechanical report demonstrates that the accident was not a result of any mechanical defect in the vehicles. Further, the deposition of PW-9 is trustworthy and inspires confidence. On the contrary, perusal of the said mechanical report demonstrates that the accident was not a result of any mechanical defect in the vehicles. Further, the deposition of PW-9 is trustworthy and inspires confidence. In his cross-examination, the defence has not been able to extract anything from him from-where the credibility of the said witness could be said to have been impinged. Similarly, the deposition of the other witnesses of the prosecution is also trustworthy and their truthfulness has not been impinged by the defence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the findings which have been arrived at by the learned Courts below are neither borne out from the record or that the findings are not supported by reasonings or the same are perverse. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to point out any material particularly which has been over-looked by the learned Courts below. 17. It is well settled law that the jurisdiction of High Court in revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon re-appreciation of evidence. The High Court in revision cannot in absence of error on a point of law, re-appreciate evidence and reverse a finding of law. 18. It has been further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the object of the revisional jurisdiction was to confer power upon superior criminal Courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precaution or apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one hand, or on the other hand in some undeserved hardship to individuals. 19. Thus it can be safely inferred that this Court has to exercise its revisional powers sparingly. Though, this Court is not required to act as a Court of appeal, however, at the same time it is the duty of the Court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. However, I do not find any manifest illegality with the judgments passed by the learned Courts below in the present case especially when the learned Appellate Court has already reduced the quantum of sentence. 20. However, I do not find any manifest illegality with the judgments passed by the learned Courts below in the present case especially when the learned Appellate Court has already reduced the quantum of sentence. 20. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that there is neither ay infirmity nor any perversity with the judgments passed by the Courts below and there is no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.