JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Petitioner herein is convict. He has been tried and convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. I, Amb, District Una H.P. in case No. 132-1/2001. Consequently, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC, simple imprisonment for three months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 337 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.5000/- fine under Section 304-A IPC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2008 decided vide impugned judgment dated 22.8.2009 has upheld the findings of conviction and sentence recorded by learned trial Court. 2. The impugned judgment has been challenged on the grounds, inter-alia, that the photograph Ext.P12 has erroneously been relied upon while recording the findings of conviction for the reasons that both vehicles i.e. offending bus and ill fated car already removed from the spot. The statement of PW2 to this effect has been pressed in service. The evidence as has come on record by way of the testimony of PW1 to PW3 irrespective of self contradictory has been erroneously relied upon and rather misread and misappropriated also. The spot map having been prepared after removal of both vehicles on the spot could have also not been relied upon. 3. The facts giving rise for filing the present petition in a nut shell are that deceased Vijay Kumar accompanied by his wife Smt. Veena was away to Bhaderkali on 27.5.2001 in his Maruti car bearing No. HP-20A-3902. On way back around 1:00 P.M. while at Charood the car being driven by deceased Vijay Kumar in normal speed and in his own side was hit by the accused with offending bus bearing registration No. HP-38-3556 on account of driving the same in a rash and negligent manner. As a result thereof PW1 and her husband both suffered injuries on their person. Her husband got seriously injured in the accident. He scummed to the injuries received in the accident on the way to zonal hospital, Una. 4. Since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving attributed to the accused-petitioner, therefore, the matter was reported to the police of police station, Amb. Her husband got seriously injured in the accident. He scummed to the injuries received in the accident on the way to zonal hospital, Una. 4. Since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving attributed to the accused-petitioner, therefore, the matter was reported to the police of police station, Amb. The information received qua the accident was reduced into writing vide rapat No. 14 Ext.PW11/B in the police diary. The police of police Station, Amb was also informed from Zonal Hospital, Una that the dead body of a person died in the accident has been brought to the hospital. Rapat Ext.PW11/C in this behalf was also entered in the rapat rojnamcha. The police swung into action. In the hospital PW1 Veena was got medically examined vide MLC Ext.PW4/A. Post Morten of the dead body was also got conduced vide post mortem report Ext.PW12/A. The statement Ext.PW1/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of PW1 was also recorded on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW11/A registered in the police station. The I.O. PW8 during the course of investigation has inspected the spot and prepared the site plan Ext.PW8/A. The photographs Ex.P7 to P12 of the place of accident with position of both vehicles were also taken. The photographs Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 are that of the dead body of deceased Vijay Kumar. The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version. 5. On completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and filed in the Court. 6. Learned trial Judge on appreciation of the final report and also the documents annexed therewith and on being satisfied that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving has proceeded to put notice of accusation under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. He, however, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. This has led the prosecution to produce the evidence comprising oral as well as documentary. 7. The material prosecution witnesses are Veena Kumari (PW1) one of the victim of the accident, Yog Raj PW2 an eye witness, Raghu Dutt PW3 being a witness qua the seizure of ill fated car vide memo Ext.PW3/A, Dr. This has led the prosecution to produce the evidence comprising oral as well as documentary. 7. The material prosecution witnesses are Veena Kumari (PW1) one of the victim of the accident, Yog Raj PW2 an eye witness, Raghu Dutt PW3 being a witness qua the seizure of ill fated car vide memo Ext.PW3/A, Dr. V.K. Raizada PW4, Medical officer Zonal Hospital, Una who has medically examined PW1 Veena Kumari and issued MLA Ext.PW4/A, PW5 Vipan Kumar who had produced the RC of the ill fated car and driving licence of the deceased before police and proved the memo Ext.PW5/A. PW6 HHC Karnail Singh had taken the photographs Ext.P1 to Ext.P3, PW7 HC Pradhan Singh had taken photographs Ext.P7 to Ext.P12, PW8 HC Rajesh Kumar during the course of investigation had taken into possession both vehicles vide memo Ext.PW3/A, the documents of the offending bus i.e. RC, insurance policy and diving licence of the accused vide memo Ext.PW8/B and the RC as well as driving licence etc. of the ill fated car vide memo Ext.PW5/A. He is also author of the spot map Ext.PW8/A. PW9 Avtar Singh had partly investigated the case and recorded the statements of PW1 Veena Kumari Ext.PW1/A. PW10 C. Narender Kumar had witnessed the recovery memo Ext.PW5/A vide which the RC, Insurance Policy and driving licence of the car have been taken in possession. PW11 HC Jasbir Singh was posted as Moharar Head Constable in the police Station at the relevant time. He has proved Rukka Ext.PW1/A and the FIR Ext.PW11/A he registered on the basis thereof. He has also proved the copies of rapat rojnamcha Ext.PW11/B and Ext.PW11/C. The RC and Insurance Policy of the offending bus and driving licence of the accused were produced before him which were taken in possession vide memo Ext.PW8/A. He witnessed the recovery thereof by putting his signature on the memo. The case property was deposited before him by Constable Vijay Kumar on 4.6.2001 which he later on forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga on 4.6.2001 vide RC No. 76 of 2001. PW12 Dr. Vipan Kumar has proved the post mortem report Ext.PW12/A and PW13 Hawaldar Shakti Kumar Mechanic driver has proved the mechanical reports Ext.PW13/A and Ext.PW13/B of the ill fated car and of offending bus after checking both vehicles mechanically. PW14 C. Vijay Kumar was examined to prove the delivery of case property in Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga. PW12 Dr. Vipan Kumar has proved the post mortem report Ext.PW12/A and PW13 Hawaldar Shakti Kumar Mechanic driver has proved the mechanical reports Ext.PW13/A and Ext.PW13/B of the ill fated car and of offending bus after checking both vehicles mechanically. PW14 C. Vijay Kumar was examined to prove the delivery of case property in Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga. 8. On the other hand, the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while admitting that bus bearing No. HP-38-3556 being driven by him from Una towards Amb and the same met with an accident has denied that he was driving the same at a high speed and wrong side of the road. The remaining incriminating circumstances appearing in prosecution evidence against him have also been denied either being wrong or for want of knowledge. In his defence, it is pleaded that the deceased on the wheel of the car was driving the same on wrong side of the road and was trying to overtake the bus on its way to Una from Amb. The deceased had overtaken the HRTC bus from wrong side and as he was driving the bus from opposite direction the car came in contact therewith and it is for this reason the accident had taken place. 9. In his defence he has examined Kishori Lal DW1, Inspector HRTC Dharamshala, district Kangra. He has produced the record and stated that Bus No. HP-39-3966 was on its route from Dharamshala to Shimla via Chandigarh and one Rakesh Kumar (III) was its driver. He expressed his inability as to what time the HRTC bus crossed Charood gaon. He has also expressed his ignorance about the accident in question. 10. On appreciation of the evidence as discussed hereinabove and taking note of the factum of the offending bus being driven by the accused in wrong side of the road and having dragged the Maruti car at a distance of 80 feet, learned trial Court has concluded that the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused is criminal rashness and negligence. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced in the manner as pointed out at the outset. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced in the manner as pointed out at the outset. Learned lower Appellate Court on reappraisal of the prosecution evidence has arrived at a conclusion that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in convicting and sentencing the accused for the commission of the offence he committed under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Ms. Ritika Jassal, Advocate has argued with all vehemence that as per the testimony of PW2 not only the photographs but the spot map was prepared at a stage when both vehicles were already removed therefrom. According to her the position reflected in the map Ext.PW8/A and the photographs Ext.P7 to Ext.P12 could have not been given undue weightage while arriving at a conclusion that the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused was criminal rashness and criminal negligence. She has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Mangla Ram vs. The Oriental Insurance Company, Civil Appeal Nos. 24992500 of 2018 and that of this Court in State of H.P. versus Parmodh Singh, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1360 and Joginder Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 2013 (1) Him L.R. 232. On the other hand, Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General has not only repelled the arguments addressed on behalf of the accused-petitioner but also pointed out from the evidence available on record that the guilt of the accused-petitioner in this case is fully established. 12. Before coming to the rival submissions and merits of the case in the light of the arguments addressed on both sides, it is worth mentioning that under limited revisional jurisdiction the Court should be slow in interfering with the findings recorded by the trial Court and for that matter learned lower appellate Court on appreciation of the given facts and circumstances and also the evidence available on record. The findings so recorded in revisional jurisdiction can only be interferred in a case of sheer miscarriage of justice and where there is an error apparent on the face of the record and the court below has committed an illegality or irregularity glaring in nature while passing the order sought to be revised. 13. The findings so recorded in revisional jurisdiction can only be interferred in a case of sheer miscarriage of justice and where there is an error apparent on the face of the record and the court below has committed an illegality or irregularity glaring in nature while passing the order sought to be revised. 13. On going through the evidence produced in this case, it is writ large that the accident leading to the death of Vijay Kumar, the driver of the ill fated car and injuries on the person of his wife PW1 is the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused-petitioner. PW1 has deposed unequivocally that the bus was being driven by the accused at a high speed and as a result thereof he lost control over the same and hit the ill fated car which was being driven by the deceased on the other side of the road. There is no explanation in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. qua this aspect of the matter. The suggestion that a Sumo was being driven ahead of the bus has been denied by this witness being incorrect. It is also denied by her that ill fated car was being driven by her husband at a high speed and that he was trying to overtake HRTC bus being driven ahead of the car. It is also denied that her deceased husband could not control the car and as a result thereof the same dashed against the bus. 14. Another material witness is Yog Raj. He has arranged 'Bhandara’ on that day. He witnessed the offending bus being driven at high speed and on the wrong side of the road, as a result thereof the same hit the ill fated car. They had to push behind the bus to bring out the injured from the ill fated car. The documentary evidence is the spot map Ext.PW8/A. The position of the bus and ill fated car shown in this document make it crystal clear that both vehicles were on kachha road in right side of the bus. Point-C on the road is in right side while going from Una to Amb side. The bus, therefore, was being driven in wrong side of the road. The distance from point-B to C in the map is 80 feet. Point-C on the road is in right side while going from Una to Amb side. The bus, therefore, was being driven in wrong side of the road. The distance from point-B to C in the map is 80 feet. This documents amply demonstrate that the car was hit at point-C and bus dragged it up to point 'B’, distance whereto is 80 feet. Such evidence itself speaks in plenty about the speed of the offending bus. Had the bus was being driven in a normal speed and in left side of the road the accident would have not taken place and even if the strike having taken place the accused would have in a position to control and stop the bus by applying the brakes there and then. 15. Interestingly enough the road at the place of accident is 22 feet wide and straight also. The ill fated car was being driven on its own side of the road. Such situation prevailing on the spot amply demonstrate that the accused was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. The photographs Ext.P-7 to Ext.P12 showing the position of the offending bus and ill fated car from different angle leave no manner of doubt that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and on wrong side of the road. As a matter of fact, the bus dragged the car out of Kachha portion of the road. Such evidence is sufficient to conclude that the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused while driving the offending bus was criminal rashness and negligence. The judgment of the Apex Court in Mangla Ram's case cited supra is distinguishable on facts, hence not applicable in the case in hand. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the case cited supra is also of no help to the case of the accused-petitioner. Since in this accident a precious human life is lost besides causing injuries to PW1, one of the occupants of the ill fated car, therefore, both Courts below have not committed any illegality or irregularity in holding the accused guilty for the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 16. Since in this accident a precious human life is lost besides causing injuries to PW1, one of the occupants of the ill fated car, therefore, both Courts below have not committed any illegality or irregularity in holding the accused guilty for the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 16. In the matter of sentence though the accused-petitioner has been rightly sentenced to undergo three months each simple imprisonment for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. As regards the commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, both Courts below have sentenced the accused-petitioner with maximum sentence i.e. two years, however, without assigning any reason. True it is that in view of there being increase in road accidents the cases pertaining to road accidents should be deal with sternly and in case the guilt of the accused established suitable sentence commensurate with the magnitude of the offence committed should be passed against him. At the same time, suitable amount by way of fine to compensate the victim of the accident can also be imposed against the convict. 17. In the opinion of this Court, sentence to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay Rs.50,000/- as fine for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC would serve the ends of justice. Therefore, in modification of the impugned judgment, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay Rs.50,000/- fine for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. He is stated to have undergone the sentence for five months as has come in para-20 of the impugned judgment. He, therefore, is directed to surrender in the trial Court to serve out the remaining part of the sentence in terms of this judgment. On deposit of the fine in the trial Court, the same shall be payable to the victim of the accident PW1 Veena Kumari as compensation under proper receipt. In case the accused-convict fails to deposit the fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. 18. In view of above, this petition is partly allowed and the impugned judgment is modified as indicated in para supra. 19. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.