JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Present Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 17.12.2007, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2006, affirming the judgment passed by learned trial Court in Police Challan No.209-II/98/96 on 20.1.2006. 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that on 25.7.1996, at about 11:15 AM bus bearing registration No.HP-01-1507 being driven by the petitioner (in short “ Accused”) was on its way from Mandi to Kullu and when the aforesaid bus reached at Nagwain, a Maruti Van bearing No. HP-02-2050 came from the opposite direction i.e Kullu side. Since the bus was being driven in rash and negligent manner he could not control the same while negotiating a curve and struck the bus against aforesaid Maruti van, as a result whereof, occupants of the Maruti Van including the driver Roop Chand sustained simple as well as grievous injuries and they were taken to District Hospital, Kullu in a private car and thereafter from the hospital, a telephonic message was received in Police Station, Aut regarding the aforesaid accident; on the basis of which rapat No.9,dated 25.7.1996 Ex.PW6/A was entered in Rapat Rojnamcha register. On this information, HC Mool Raj along with Constable Shanti Kumr and Subhash Chand went to the spot and recorded the statement of complainant Manoj Kumar(PW-3) under Section 154 Cr.P.C vide Ex. PW3/A, on the basis of which, FIR Ex.PW12/A was registered against the accused. During the investigation, police obtained MLC Ex.PW8/A, X-ray forms Ex.PW8/B, X-ray films Ex. PW8/C and Ex.PW8/D of Rup Chand and MLC Ex.PW8/E of injured Kuber Dutt. During investigation, police took into possession the broken pieces of glass Ex.P1 of the bus vide recovery memo Ex.PW3/B. The bus bearing No. HP-01-1507 along with its key and documents as well as the Maruti Van bearing No. HP 02-2050 were also taken into possession along with documents vide recovery memo Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW4/C respectively. However, lateron the bus and van were handed over on sapurdari as per the order passed by the Court below. The investigating officer also prepared the spot map Ex.PW12/C. The photographs of the place of accidents Ex.PW5/A-1 to Ex.PW5/A-7 were also obtained. After completion of the investigation, challan was prepared and presented in the competent Court of law against the present accused. 3. The investigating officer also prepared the spot map Ex.PW12/C. The photographs of the place of accidents Ex.PW5/A-1 to Ex.PW5/A-7 were also obtained. After completion of the investigation, challan was prepared and presented in the competent Court of law against the present accused. 3. The learned trial Court after satisfying itself that a prima facie case exist against the accused, framed the notice of accusation under Sections 279, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code against the accused, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciating the material evidence available on record held the accused guilty under Sections 279, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. The accused is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the commission of offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC. The accused is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the commission of offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction of learned trial Court, accused filed an appeal under Section 374(3)(a) Cr.P.C before the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P, whereby the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.12.2007 and the judgment passed by learned trial court was upheld. Hence, the present revision petition. 6. In the present case, prosecution with a view to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt examined as many as 12 witnesses. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was also recorded, wherein he admitted the accident but stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as bus was not being plied by him in rashly and negligently. 7. As has been mentioned above, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. But in the present case, statements made by PW-1, Roop Chand, PW-2, Kuber Chand, PW- 3, Manoj Kumar(complainant), PW-8, Dr. 7. As has been mentioned above, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. But in the present case, statements made by PW-1, Roop Chand, PW-2, Kuber Chand, PW- 3, Manoj Kumar(complainant), PW-8, Dr. J.R.Thakur and PW-12, Mool Raj are relevant as they were material witnesses brought by the prosecution to prove its case. PW-4, Kishori Lal, PW-5, Jai Singh, PW-6, HC Mangat Ram, PW-7, Mehar Chand, PW-9, Bahadur Singh, PW-10, Puran Chand and PW-11, Daya Ram are formal witnesses and, as such, their testimonies are not required to be dealt with by this Court at this juncture. 8. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below deserve to be quashed and set-aside as the same are not based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence available on record. He contended that the evidence available on record has not been appreciated by the Courts below in its right perspective and rather judgments are based on conjectures and surmises. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel strenuously argued that in the present case prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because perusal of the statements made by the prosecution witnesses itself suggest that they are contradictory, unreliable and untrustworthy and Courts below have led undue credence to the statements of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 while convicting the accused. It is also contended on behalf of the accused that no specific evidence, whatsoever, is on record led by the prosecution to establish the speed of the vehicle and, as such, merely on the statements of prosecution witnesses that the vehicle at the relevant time was being driven rashly and negligently the accused could not be convicted. During arguments, he invited the attention of the Court to the statements made by the prosecution witnesses solely with a view to establish that there are major contradictions in the statements made by the prosecution witnesses. Specifically, he invited the attention of the court to the statement given by PW-3, Manoj Kumar, on whose behest FIR was lodged, where he stated that the bus was being driven at the normal speed at the time of accident. Mr. Specifically, he invited the attention of the court to the statement given by PW-3, Manoj Kumar, on whose behest FIR was lodged, where he stated that the bus was being driven at the normal speed at the time of accident. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel further contended that both the Courts below have failed to acknowledge the fact that at the relevant time child was crossing the road and in order to save him, driver had taken the bus to the wrong side of the road, as a result whereof, it struck against the Maruti Van. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel forcibly contended that it is admitted case of the parties that at the site of the accident there are lot of residential houses but it remained unexplained that why the prosecution has failed to associate independent witness from those houses. Moreover, occupants of the Van filed false case against the accused in order to get compensation under Motor Vehicles Act. Lastly, Mr. Thakur, learned counsel contended that the punishment imposed by the Court below while convicting the accused is very harsh in the given facts and circumstances of the case where as per MLC, simple injuries were caused to the occupants of the Maruti van. He 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. He stated that since this accident occurred in the year, 2006 and more than 10 years passed and during this period petitioner 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. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, supported the judgments passed by both the Courts below and stated that interference of this Court is not warranted in the present case as the judgments passed by both the Courts below are based on the correct appreciation of evidence on record. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, supported the judgments passed by both the Courts below and stated that interference of this Court is not warranted in the present case as the judgments passed by both the Courts below are based on the correct appreciation of evidence on record. Learned Additional Advocate General, strenuously argued that the material available on record suggest that the bus in question was being driven in rash and negligent manner by the accused at the relevant time, as a result of which, two persons sustained simple as well as grievous injuries. He further contended that it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that the bus in question was being plied on the wrong side of the road, which is evident from the spot map and, as such, it can be safely inferred that the accused, who was driving the bus in high speed failed to negotiate the curve and struck the same with the Maruti Van. Learned Additional Advocate General, also submitted that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, no lenient view can be taken by this Court in favour of the accused. He also submitted that this Court has very limited powers to re-appreciate the evidence available on record, especially when it clearly emerge from the record that both the Courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every statements of the witnesses brought on record by both the parties. He prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. 10. I have heard the 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 for three months imprisonment for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 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 of the case. 12. 12. In the present case, as has been referred above, PW- 1, Roop Chand, who was driving the Maruti van No. HP-01-2050 categorically stated that he had gone to Kullu and while they were coming from Kullu at about 11:45 AM reached near Nagwain and then a bus while negotiating the curve lost its control and struck against the Maruti van, as a result of which, he as well as other occupants of the van sustained injuries. He categorically stated that the bus was coming from Kullu side being driven on wrong side of the road in rash and negligent manner. It stands also proved on record that PW-1, Roop Chand sustained injuries as his leg and arm got fractured. Perusal of the cross-examination of this witness suggest that the defence was unable to extract anything otherwise from him, rather careful perusal of the cross-examination suggest that this witness stuck to his statement given in the examination-in-chief. 13. PW-2, Kuber Chand, another occupant of the van bearing No. HP-02-2050 stated that he had gone to Kullu along with his maternal uncle, Roop Chand. He also stated that the bus was being driven in rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road by the accused and while negotiating the curve bus hit the van. The prosecution also examined an independent witness PW-3, Manoj Kumar, who stated that he had come to Nagwain in connection with his personal work. He categorically stated that the bus was coming from Mandi side towards kullu and the van was coming from the other side. It has come in his statement that the bus driver was driving the bus on the wrong side of the road and hit the Maruti van. Even in his cross-examination, nothing material was put to him, which could shake the testimony of this important witness. Rather careful perusal of the cross-examination of this PW suggests that this witness reiterated what he actually stated in his examination-inchief. Admittedly, it has come in his statement that at the time of the accident the bus was being driven in normal speed. 14. PW-8, Dr. J.R.Thakur, who examined the injured Roop Chand vide issued MLC Ex.PW8/A and also advised X-ray . Admittedly, it has come in his statement that at the time of the accident the bus was being driven in normal speed. 14. PW-8, Dr. J.R.Thakur, who examined the injured Roop Chand vide issued MLC Ex.PW8/A and also advised X-ray . X-ray report is Ex.PW8/B and x-ray films are Ex.PW8/C and Ex.PW8/D categorically stated while proving the aforesaid exhibits that the injuries were sustained by the occupants of the van and stated that these injuries are possible in vehicular accident. Perusal of the MLC Ex.PW8/A suggest that in this accident PW-1, Roop Chand sustained injuries on his leg and arm. 15. PW-12, SI Mool Raj, investigating officer stated that on 25.7.1996 at about 1:50 PM, he along with HC Daya Ram telephonically informed that two injured persons namely Kuber Chand and Roop Chand have been admitted at Zonal Hospital Kullu. He stated that on this rapat No. 9 Ex.PW6/A was registered and thereafter he along with other officials went to the spot and recorded the statement of Manoj Kumar Ex.PW3/A. After recording the statement, ruqua was sent to the police station through Constable Shanti Kumar, on which FIR Ex.PW12/A was registered and endorsement Ex.PW12/B was also made on the ruqua. He also stated that he prepared the spot map Ex.PW12/C and he took into possession broken pieces of glass vide memo Ex.PW3/B. It has also come in his statement that mechanical examination of the vehicles was conducted and reports Ex.PW12/D and Ex.12/E were obtained respectively. Mechanical reports suggest that no mechanical defect was found in the vehicles involved in the accident. He also denied in his crossexamination that a child, who allegedly tried to cross the road and in order to save him, the driver of the bus took the bus outside the road. Careful perusal of the aforesaid statement made by aforesaid prosecution witness clearly established that ill-fated accident occurred on the given date due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. 16. All the prosecution witnesses unequivocally stated in their statements that the bus was being driven by the accused in high speed that too on the wrong side of the road. PW-1 and PW-2, who were occupants of the van categorically, stated that the accused coming from Mandi side and while negotiating the curve lost the control and struck against the maruti van, as a result of which, they sustained injuries. PW-1 and PW-2, who were occupants of the van categorically, stated that the accused coming from Mandi side and while negotiating the curve lost the control and struck against the maruti van, as a result of which, they sustained injuries. PW-3, Manoj Kumar admittedly an independent witness also supported the versions of PW-1 and PW-2. Though, in his statement it has come that at the relevant time bus was being driven in a normal speed. At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that the speed is not the criteria for deciding the rash and negligent driving. Admittedly, there is no mode from which it can be inferred that what was the actual speed of the vehicle at the time of accident because after the accident/collision Speedo meter spring back to zero. It is difficult to ascertain that what was the actual speed of the vehicle, in that situation only evidence which can be taken into consideration as the statement of the eye witnesses. In the present case, PW-1 and PW-2, who were the occupants of the Maruti van and PW-3, who was independent witness, have unequivocally stated that at the relevant time bus was being driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side of the road. Perusal of the spot map Ex.PW12/C, leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that the bus was on the wrong side and it appears that while negotiating the curve it lost control and struck against the van, which was admittedly on its wrong side. Perusal of photographs Ex. PW5/A-1 to Ex.PW5/A-7 suggest that at the site of the occurrence the road is very wide and normally in such like roads vehicles are driven on very high speed . In this case since road was very wide and there was a curve as per statements of prosecution witnesses driver lost the control over the vehicle while negotiating the curve. Keeping in view the statement of the prosecution witnesses, which are duly corroborated by the documentary evidence available on record, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the findings returned by both the Courts below that the bus was being driven in rash and negligent manner by the accused are correct based upon appreciation of evidence available on record. Keeping in view the statement of the prosecution witnesses, which are duly corroborated by the documentary evidence available on record, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the findings returned by both the Courts below that the bus was being driven in rash and negligent manner by the accused are correct based upon appreciation of evidence available on record. True, it is that speed is not the criteria to ascertain the aspect of rash and negligent, sometimes vehicle being driven on the speed of 100 may not be termed to rash and negligent driving but sometimes vehicle being driven merely on the speed of 20 may be termed as rash and negligent driving. In the present case, where photographs and spot map clearly suggest that bus was being driven on the wrong side and even if the Court do not took note of averments with regard to the high speed made by the prosecution witnesses, in that eventuality also it can be concluded that the bus was being driven on the wrong side of the road which clearly establish the fact of rash and negligent driving by the accused. It is undisputedly proved on record that due to aforesaid accident, PW-1 sustained simple as well as grievous injuries as he had fractured his leg and arm. 17. PW-8, Dr. J.R.Thakur has already proved the MLC while deposing in the court below. It has specifically come in his statement that injuries caused to PW-1 are possible in the vehicular accident. Now as far as the stand taken by the accused before the Court below is concerned, the same has been not substantiated by any material evidence available on record. Perusal of the record of Court below shows that during the arguments defence has been taken by the accused that at the relevant time a child was crossing the road and, as such, solely with a view to save him he turned the vehicle on the wrong side of the road. At this stage, it can be pointed out that it has been never the case of the accused because perusal of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C clearly suggests that he had taken the defence that he has been falsely implicated in the case and bus was not being driven in rash and negligent manner at the relevant time. At this stage, it can be pointed out that it has been never the case of the accused because perusal of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C clearly suggests that he had taken the defence that he has been falsely implicated in the case and bus was not being driven in rash and negligent manner at the relevant time. Story which has been brought in appeal by the defence counsel in his defence was not recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, however, Courts below should not have allowed him to dwell his case on aforesaid presumption. Since this aspect has been discussed by the Court below so this Court undertook exercise to examine this issue also viz-a-viz evidence available on record. 18. Perusal of statements of PW-1, PW-2 , PW-3 and PW- 11, nowhere suggest that at the time of the accident some child had come on the road, compelling the accused to turn his bus on the wrong side of the road. All the suggestions in this regard put forth to the prosecution witnesses by the defence in crossexamination have been categorically denied, meaning thereby that the story put forth by the defence counsel at the time of accused was a second thought, which has been rightly rejected by the Courts below. 19. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case where there is ample evidence on record to suggest that offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligent, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgments passed by the courts below deserve to be upheld as the same are based upon the correct appreciation of evidence available on record. 20. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel, also prayed that accused may be given the benefit of probation under Section 4(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 keeping in view his age and his being first offender. He also stated that mitigating circumstance in this case is that more than 10 years have passed after passing of the judgment dated 20.1.2006, whereby the accused was convicted and he has already suffered mental agony during the pendency of the appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi as well as in High Court of Himachal Pradesh. In support of the aforesaid arguments, Mr. In support of the aforesaid arguments, Mr. Thakur, also invited the attention of this Court to 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. 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. 21. This Court 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 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.” 22. 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.” 22. However, keeping in view the gravity of injuries sustained by the occupants of the Maruti van as well as the time consumed in this litigation, i.e. approximately 10 years, wherein admittedly petitioner suffered lot of mental agony and he has a family to support, this Court deems it to be a fit case to modify the sentence awarded by the Court below, it appears that the punishment awarded by the Court below is on the higher side and, as such, same is reduced to 10 days only. Hence the judgment passed by the court below is modified to that extent only and revision petition is dismissed accordingly. Order dated 4.4.2008, passed by this Court whereby sentence imposed by the court below was suspended, is hereby vacated and the petitioner-accused is directed to surrender himself before the learned trial Court forthwith to serve the sentence as awarded by learned trial court subject to the modification made hereinabove. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.