ORDER : Vijay Kumar Vyas, J. This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 17.12.2005 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, cases, Tonk in Criminal Appeal No.45/2005 upholding the judgment dated 16.7.2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Deoli, District Tonk in Cr. Case No.888/2003 (424/95) whereby revisionist was convicted and sentenced as follows : U/s 279 IPC - Six months' Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment thereof, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. U/s 304-A IPC - Two years' Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment thereof, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision are that on 24.11.1995 at about 12.30 PM , complainant Gulab Chand S/o Shri Kana Ram (PW-1) submitted a written report (Ex.P-1) before ASI – Ganpat Singh of Police Station, Deoli at the site of accident stating inter alia that today (on 24.11.1995) at about 12.00 noon when Manni W/o Shri Lala Ram, who is wife of his elder brother, was coming along with her son Mukesh aged about 1½ years from market to home. On the Bharatpur house road which goes towards agency, a truck No. RJ06-G-0689 came with fast speed from Deoli side. It crushed child Mukesh, who died on the spot. Sheokaran Jat R/o Bhopalpura was driving the truck, who is known to him. On this report, ASI, Shri Ganpat Singh made an endorsement and brought it to police station and registered a regular FIR No.277/95 (Ex.P-12). After investigation, a charge sheet against the revisionist for the offence punishable u/s 279 and 304-A IPC was submitted before learned Judicial Magistrate, Deoli. The revisionist was read over the substance of accusations for offence punishable u/s 279 and 304-A IPC. He denied the charges and claimed trial. Accused petitioner was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He stated that the evidence adduced by prosecution is wrong. He was not driving the truck at the time of accident. No defence evidence of any kind was produced. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court vide judgment dated 16.7.2004 convicted and sentenced the revisionist petitioner, as aforesaid. Accused petitioner was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He stated that the evidence adduced by prosecution is wrong. He was not driving the truck at the time of accident. No defence evidence of any kind was produced. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court vide judgment dated 16.7.2004 convicted and sentenced the revisionist petitioner, as aforesaid. On appeal, learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, cases, Tonk after hearing both the parties dismissed the appeal vide its judgment dated 17.12.2005 and upheld the judgment of learned trial court. 3. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submit that while passing the impugned judgment, learned courts below did not consider the fact that no independent witness was examined and all the witnesses were interested and also did not consider the serious contradictions in the statements of Gulab Chand (PW-1) and Manni W/o Shri Balaram (PW-5), the star witnesses. 4. Manni (PW-5) is the sole eye witness. If the prosecution story is believed, then she should also have suffered injuries but there is no injury report of Manni, available on record. 5. Learned counsel also submit that the prosecution has completely failed to establish that at the time of accident the revisionist petitioner was driving the truck. No notice u/s 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act was given to owner of the truck. The owner of the truck was also not examined. 6. It is argued that independent witnesses examined as eye witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution story. Despite, Gulab Chand (PW-1) and Manni (PW-5) have been believed. 7. At last, in alternate, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the learned courts below while passing sentence, did not consider the mandatory provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgments of the courts below. He submits that there was no need to give notice u/s 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act as the informant of FIR Gulab Chand (PW-1), an eye witness, has stated that driver of the truck was Sheokaran Jat, who was known to him. Manni (PW-5) has stated that she was hit by truck and there was an abrasion on her elbow. So far as injury report is concerned, she was not so conscious as to get her injuries medically examined. Manni (PW-5) has stated that she was hit by truck and there was an abrasion on her elbow. So far as injury report is concerned, she was not so conscious as to get her injuries medically examined. Nand Kishore (PW-4), alleged eye witness, has stated that he used to drive jeep of Banna Lal contractor. One truck of the same contractor was driven by Sheokaran. At about 12 O’clock, after re-filling fuel, he was driving away the jeep, followed by the truck driven by Sheokaran. Children were playing in the side of road. He went through and what happened to the following truck, he does not know. Accident of child was happened but he did not stop there. Number of the truck following, was 689. The child was dead. So far other two independent eye witnesses are concerned, Durga Lal (PW-6) and Ram Kishan (PW-8) have turned hostile and they are not stating anything in favour or against the prosecution. Thus, the testimony of Nand Kishore (PW-4) is corroborating the evidence of informant Gulab Chand (PW-1), so far as driver of the truck met with accident and in the accident, death of a child, is concerned. 9. Learned trial court has committed no wrong in passing the sentence. The benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act has rightly been denied to the revisionist petitioner. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 11. Manni (PW-5) has stated that at about 12 O’clock in the day when she was going back from market to her house after purchasing vegetables, her son aged about 1½ years was with her, a truck in fast speed approached from behind. Trees of babools were there on site. In the process of saving both from babool and truck, she bowed down caring the child but the truck gave a hit to the child, whereupon, he fell down and the truck ran over the child, thereby he get died. The truck driver fled away. Her Devar (younger brother of her husband) Gulab also saw the incident, who was following her on the way. In cross examination, she has stated that she was walking on right side of the road as on left side there were trees of babools. Later on, she says that she was walking in the side where trees of babool were there. In cross examination, she has stated that she was walking on right side of the road as on left side there were trees of babools. Later on, she says that she was walking in the side where trees of babool were there. Her hand was also hit and she got an abrasion on elbow. She fell down towards babool tree. A jeep was ahead of the truck, jeep went through but the truck gave a hit. She cannot say who was driving the truck. She denied that her child was on foot. She states that child was not of the age of walking on his own. 12. Gulab Chand (PW-1) has fully corroborated the statement of Manni (PW-5). In addition, he has stated that the truck was driven with very fast speed and Sheokaran was the driver who was known to him. His nephew got into rear tyre of the truck and died on the spot. He further states that Sheokaran was known to him. Earlier, he was also driving a vehicle of the same company. In cross examination, he has stated that he means by fast speed 60 Km/hr. or 70 Km/hr. Slow speed of the truck happens to be 40 or 30 Km/hr. At the time of accident, the child was carried by his mother. Nand Kishore (PW-4), Durga Lal (PW-6) and Ram Kishan (PW-8) have also been examined as eye witnesses. Durga Lal (PW-6) and Ram Kishan (PW-8) have turned hostile and they are not stating anything in favour or against the prosecution. Nand Kishore (PW-4) has somehow or otherwise corroborated the evidence given by Manni (PW-5) and Gulab Chand (PW-1). From his statement also, it is established that at the time of accident, the truck was being driven by revisionist Sheokaran. This witness has also corroborated that the truck driven by Sheokaran was following his jeep. He went through safely but the truck met with an accident and the child was killed. Number of the truck was 689. He did not stop there. So he does not know what happened to the truck following him. In cross examination, he also states that he cannot say how the accident took place. Contrary to the examination in chief, he has also stated that it is correct that he was driving ahead so he does not know who was driving the truck at the time of accident. 13. Dr. In cross examination, he also states that he cannot say how the accident took place. Contrary to the examination in chief, he has also stated that it is correct that he was driving ahead so he does not know who was driving the truck at the time of accident. 13. Dr. Om Prakash Jain (PW-2) conducted the postmortem of the child. He has stated that scalp, skull, membrane and brain of child Mukesh aged about 1½ years were found crushed. The cause of death was shock due to crush injury of brain and excessive haemorrhage from wound in due course of time. Postmortem report is Ex.P-5. Ram Narayhan (PW-3) - MTO, is a person who examined the truck No. RJ06/689 mechanically and stated that at the time of examination, he did not find any mechanical fault in the vehicle. Mechanical report is Ex. P-6. 14. On perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is clear that whatever has been stated by Gulab Chand (PW-1) and Manni (PW-5) find a complete corroboration from other evidence adduced by the prosecution. Turning hostile of two alleged eye witnesses has no bearance, as they are utterly hostile and not deposing anything in favour or against the prosecution. Postmortem and mechanical report are in favour of the prosecution. When other evidence is available in support of ocular evidence of Gulab Chand (PW-1) and Manni (PW-5), learned trial court as well as learned appellate court have not erred in believing the prosecution story as true. 15. Manni (PW-5) has admitted that she was also injured. However, she was not medically examined. Reason of non-examination has very well explained by her. Revisionist Sheokaran was well known, prior to the accident, to Gulab Chand (PW-1) and in the First Information Report itself, Gulab Chand has mentioned that truck was being driven by Sheokaran. Therefore, there was no need of giving notice u/s 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act to the owner of the truck. For the same reason, there was no need to examine the owner of the truck. 16. So far as sentence is concerned, at the time of accident the revisionist was 37 years of the age. By this time, he must have crossed 58 years. I am of the view that it would be rather harsh to send the revisionist to jail after 21 years of accident to undergo the remaining sentence. 16. So far as sentence is concerned, at the time of accident the revisionist was 37 years of the age. By this time, he must have crossed 58 years. I am of the view that it would be rather harsh to send the revisionist to jail after 21 years of accident to undergo the remaining sentence. The end of justice would be met if the revisionist is placed under probation. My view gets force from Shiv Prashad v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 732, Prakash Chandra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1991 Cr.L.R. S.C. 207 and Paul George v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2008) 4 SCC 185 . 17. In the result, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed in following terms:- (i) Conviction of accused-revisionist Sheokaran for offence under sections 279 & 304-A IPC, is maintained. However, sentence passed by learned Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 16.07.2004, is modified and it is directed under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 that if the revisionist-accused Sheokaran submits a bond of Rs. 20,000/- and a surety of equal amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, he may be placed under probation for a period two years on the condition that he will maintain peace and tranquility during the period and on breach of any the condition, he will be ready to undergo the remaining sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. (ii) Keeping, however, in view the provisions of section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, revisionist-Sheokaran is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the even of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, revisionist Sheokaran, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.