JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction and sentence made in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2012 dated 12.12.2014 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.317 of 2010 dated 03.08.2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagapattinam.) 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused who was found guilty for offences under Sections 279, 337 (4 counts), 338 (1 count) and 304(A)(4counts) of I.P.C and Rule 21(10) of Central Motor Vehicle Rules r/w Section 19 of Motor Vehicle Act and convicted to undergo the sentence as below:- Offence Conviction and Sentence imposed by the trial Court 337 (4 counts) of I.P.C To pay fine of Rs.500/- for each count, in default one month S.I 338 (1 count) of I.P.C To undergo 6 months S.I. 304(A)(4 counts) of I.P.C To undergo 1 year S.I for each count. For offence under Section 279 of I.P.C., no separate sentence was imposed and Rule 21(10) of Central Motor Vehicle Rules r/w 19 of Motor Vehicle Act, the R.T.O Nagapattinam was directed to suspend the driving license of the accused for a period of one month. 2. The judgment of the Trial Court on appeal to the Sessions Court got confirmed. Hence, the Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. 3. The case of prosecution is that, on 11.04.2009, at about 6.30 p.m., when the petitioner herein was driving the lorry bearing registration No.TN-49-Z- 3463 with construction materials and the labourers sitting on the material and few others in the cabin, the lorry got capsized causing death of 4 persons and injuries to 4 others. While crossing temporary bridge near Thiruvaimor Irrigation Channel at Kolappadu -Thirukuvalai Road. The accident attributed to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. 4. The factum of accident and death spoken by prosecution witnesses and substantiated by the documentary evidence. The petitioner also does not seriously deny about the accident and the death of 4 persons besides injuries to 8 persons, who were among the 25 persons travelling in the lorry. 5. The defence taken by the petitioner is that the accident did not occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the petitioner, but due to improper laying of temporary bridge using cement pipe and unexpected rain making road sludgy. 5. The defence taken by the petitioner is that the accident did not occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the petitioner, but due to improper laying of temporary bridge using cement pipe and unexpected rain making road sludgy. Therefore, neither negligence or rashness can be attributed to the accused/petitioner. 6. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that P.W.1 to P.W.7, who are eye witnesses to the incident had not spoken anything adverse about the driving of the petitioner. They have all attributed to rain and poor condition of the road for the accident. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held guilty for causing death or hurt to punish under Sections 337 or 304 (A) of I.P.C 7. Per contra, the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the state would submit that carrying 4 persons in the cabin and 20 and more persons in the space for loading goods clearly indicate that the petitioner has violated the Motor Vehicle Rules. Without taking proper caution he with more than 25 persons and has tried to cross the makeshift bridge in the van to carry passengers contrary to Rule which has led to capsize the vehicle and death of 4 persons and simple injury to 4 others and grievous injury to two persons. 8. This Court, on perusing the evidence finds that the petitioner herein was the driver of the vehicle, involved in the accident on 11.04.2009 and same is proved through evidence. There is no contra evidence about the identity of the driver of the lorry. In the accident, 4 persons by name Annalakshmi, Rajathi, Kala @ Sasikala and Marimuthu died, which attracts offence under Section 304 (A) of I.P.C. The evidences of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 and the Accident Register-cum-wound certificates show that 4 person got injured in the accident which is simple in nature and P.W.6 sustained grievous injury, which attract offences under Section 337 and 338 of I.P.C respectively. When the regular road under repair work and temporary bridge been laid for transport, the driver of the vehicle is expected to be more vigilant particularly, when the vehicle is loaded with building materials as well as the persons on the top and in the cabin 4 persons. When the regular road under repair work and temporary bridge been laid for transport, the driver of the vehicle is expected to be more vigilant particularly, when the vehicle is loaded with building materials as well as the persons on the top and in the cabin 4 persons. From the eye witnesses, it is clear that the lorry got capsized and loaded building materials fallen on the persons, who were travelling on the top of the lorry and in the cabin. Therefore, this Court finds no error in the finding of the Courts below holding the appellant guilty of the charges. 9. Regarding the sentence is concerned, it is contended that the petitioner herein had lost his livelihood since he was punished for offence under Section 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, by suspending the Driving License for a period of one month and therefore, any imprisonment will cause serious injury to him and his family. Taking note of the above submission, the sentence is modified as below:- Offence Conviction and Sentence imposed by the trial Court Conviction and sentence modified by this Court as below: 337 (4 counts) of I.P.C To pay fine of Rs.500/- for each count, in default one month S.I To pay fine of Rs.500/- for each count, in default one month S.I (confirmed) 338 (1 count) of I.P.C To undergo 6 months S.I. To undergo 1 months S.I. 304(A)(4 counts) of I.P.C To undergo 1 year S.I for each count. To undergo 2 months S.I for each count. (Concurrently) The period of sentence shall run concurrently. Rule 21(10) of Central Motor Vehicle Rules r/w 19 of Motor Vehicle Act, the R.T.O, Nagapattinam, was directed to suspend the driving license of the petitioner for a period of one month is hereby confirmed. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed. The respondent is directed to secure the accused person and committed to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The period of imprisonment already undergo shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.