JUDGMENT : PRATYUSH KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal questions the correctness of conviction and sentence dated 24th August, 1998 passed in S.T. No.336 of 1989 (State vs. Jamal Khan), P.S. Naka Hindola, Lucknow by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, whereby he has been punished with rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.30,000/-under section 304-A I.P.C. 2. Heard Sri Ravi Dingar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. That on 8th November, 1987, at 10.45 p.m. Ramesh Kumar gave a written report at Police Station Naka Hindola stating therein that on that day at 10.00 p.m. he was coming towards Mohan Hotel. He saw a Bus No.URL 2275 coming from the side of Bans Mandi Chauraha which collided with a rickshaw, bicycle and one scooter and thereafter crashed with Jai Bharat Hotel. In the collusion his scooter UME 8473 was also damaged but he had saved himself by jumping from the scooter. When truck driver jumped out of the bus, a police party coming from a jeep caught him. The driver gave his name as Jamal Khan. One rickshaw puller died in the accident. His name was Nanhake. In the accident, one women Sangeeta and her father Chandra Shekhar Srivastava sustained injuries. The driver of the bus was driving the vehicle with excessive speed. 4. At this Check F.I.R. was scribed, Case Crime No.489 of 1987 under sections 279, 337, 304 I.P.C. was registered and investigated and chargesheet was submitted against the present appellant. The appellant stood for trial before the Court of Session. He was charged under section 304 I.P.C, which he denied. 5. In order to prove the charges, on behalf of the prosecution, besides documentary evidence, eight witnesses were examined. First informant Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, P.W.-1 proved written report Exhibit Ka-1 and described the occurrence but he refused to identify the appellant. 6. Janardan Lal Shukla, P.W.-2 owner of the hotel narrated the occurrence but claimed that in his knowledge no one was arrested on the spot and he had seen the appellant at the police station. 7. Kripal, P.W.-3 is the rickshaw puller whose rickshaw was damaged in the accident. He has supported the prosecution version. According to him, one sub-inspector arrested the driver after chasing him. He has identified the appellant in the trial court as bus driver. 7. Kripal, P.W.-3 is the rickshaw puller whose rickshaw was damaged in the accident. He has supported the prosecution version. According to him, one sub-inspector arrested the driver after chasing him. He has identified the appellant in the trial court as bus driver. According to him, he had sustained injuries and he was medically examined. 8. Sunita Srivastava, P.W.-4 also narrated the incident. She has identified the appellant in the trial court. 9. Chandra Nath Sinha, P.W.-5 has also narrated the occurrence. His scooter was damaged in that accident. 10. Constable Bhanu Pratap Singh, P.W.-6 is the scribe of check F.I.R. he was proved Check F.I.R. Exhibit Ka-3 and copy of the report of the general diary Exhibit Ka-4. 11. Dr. Sudhir Pandey, P.W.-7 on 8th November, 1987 at 11.20 p.m. medically examined Sunita. He found on her person, three lacerated wounds. He has proved injury report Exhibit Ka-7. 12. Dr. S.T.Husain P.W.-8 on 8th November, 1987 at 11.50 p.m. medically examined Jamal Khan and found two abrasion on his person. He has proved the injury report of Jamal Khan Exhibit Ka 6. On the night at 11.30 p.m., he medically examined Kripal, a rickshaw puller and found four injuries on his person, three were lacerated wound, one was contusion. He has proved the injury report Exhibit Ka-8. 13. Dr. R.C.Sharma, P.W.-9 on 9th November, 1987 conducted the postmortem examination of Nanhake. During postmortem he found ten ante-mortem injuries on his person. He has proved postmortem report Exhibit Ka-9. 14. S.I. Vinod Kumar Udeniay, P.W.-10 is the investigating officer. He gave details of the steps taken in the course of investigation. He has proved inquest report Exhibit Ka-10, site plan Exhibit Ka-15 and chargesheet Exhibit Ka-16. 15. The appellant in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the correctness of the facts stated by the prosecution witnesses and claimed that witnesses were deposing falsely against him due to pressure of the police. 16. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that bus was not subjected to technical examination. His submission is that in case break of the bus was found out of order, no criminal liability would attach to the appellant but I am not convinced with this argument because during ocular evidence, it has come that bus was driven at great speed. His submission is that in case break of the bus was found out of order, no criminal liability would attach to the appellant but I am not convinced with this argument because during ocular evidence, it has come that bus was driven at great speed. If the driver know that breaks were not working, driving at great speed in itself proves rash and negligent driving. Since the identity of the bus stands established beyond any reasonable doubt, therefore, absence of technical examination would not prove fatal for the prosecution. 17. Ocular evidence, being of independent nature, inspires confidence of the Court. The witnesses have no occasion to depose falsely against the present appellant and they have withstood the test of cross examination successfully. Being injured their presence at the spot is natural and probable, therefore, I think there remains no doubt that bus in question was driven by the appellant at great speed as a result thereof the incident occurred wherein Nanhake lost his life. 18. One more argument has been advanced that the Sub-Inspector who arrested the appellant on spot has not been produced by the prosecution. Though after close of defence, prosecution moved an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon the Sub-Inspector but that application was rejected by the Court. Prosecution has successfully unfolded all the material facts of the case, therefore, for non-production of arresting officer, trustworthy case of the prosecution cannot be discarded. 19. No other argument has been raised on behalf of the appellant on the point of conviction. 20. However, taking into consideration thirty years of litigation and advance age of the appellant, I think sentence awarded by the learned trial court requires to be modified. 21. Appeal is partly allowed. 22. Conviction of appellant Jamal Khan under section 304 A I.P.C. is affirmed. However, his sentence under section 304-A I.P.C. is altered and reduced from rigorous imprisonment of two years to rigorous imprisonment of three months, consequently, amount of fine is raised from Rs.30,000/-to Rs.60,000/ and proportionately after deposit of fine, wife and dependent of the deceased would get Rs.50,000/-as compensation. In case of default of payment of find, the appellant would further undergo additional imprisonment of three months. 23. The appellant is on bail. Though non-bailable warrant has been issued against him and his application for recall of warrant is pending. In case of default of payment of find, the appellant would further undergo additional imprisonment of three months. 23. The appellant is on bail. Though non-bailable warrant has been issued against him and his application for recall of warrant is pending. He is directed to surrender before the court below within 30 days from the date of this order and serve out his sentence as modified by this Court. In case, the appellant does not surrender within the stipulated time, the court below shall pass appropriate order for procuring the attendance of the appellant and shall send him to jail. The period already undergone by the appellant in the present case shall be adjusted towards the sentence in accordance with the provision contained in Section 428 Cr.P.C. 24. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned and to send back the record to the court below.