ORDER : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. The petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304A IPC. For the former two he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months each and for the third R.I. for a period of two years. 2. As per the owner of the truck who appeared as PW-5 he has stated that the petitioner was one of the driver whom he used to engage to drive the truck. With respect to Exhibit-P8 the notice under the Motor Vehicles Act he admitted that at the time when the accident took place the truck was entrusted to the petitioner. Two injured eye-witnesses who have appeared as PW-1 and PW-2 have also identified the petitioner as the driver of the truck. 3. Date was 06.06.1987. The petitioner was driving the truck in which PW-1 and PW-2 were passengers. Nemi Chand was another passenger. As the truck crossed the bridge over Lani river, it went out of control. Veering to the wrong side of the road the truck overturned and as a result Nemi Chand died. PW-1 and PW-2 suffered injuries. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in cross-examination PW-1 and PW-2 have said that they cannot say with certainty that the truck was being driven fast. Both of them said that they were having a nap ¼iyd >id xbZ½ when the truck suddenly overturned. Now, if the truck suddenly overturns it is obviously a case of it being driven so fast that the driver lost control. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the reason for the truck overturning could be the sand or gravel lying on the road. Assuming that this was the reason for the truck to slip and overturn, had it been driven within the prescribed limits the driver would certainly have controlled the truck. It would not have moved to the wrong side of the road and then overturned. 5. The site plan Exhibit-P9A is the proof of the truck being driven rashly and negligently. 6. On the issue of sentence I find that the learned Judge has imposed the maximum sentences overlooking that the truck overturned at 3.00 in night. It is obviously a case where owner of the truck was taking extra duty from the petitioner. 5. The site plan Exhibit-P9A is the proof of the truck being driven rashly and negligently. 6. On the issue of sentence I find that the learned Judge has imposed the maximum sentences overlooking that the truck overturned at 3.00 in night. It is obviously a case where owner of the truck was taking extra duty from the petitioner. Under the circumstances maintaining the conviction of the petitioner I reduce the sentences for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 IPC to 2 months S.I. and for the offence punishable under Section 304A to 6 months R.I. 7. The petition is disposed of reducing the sentence.