JUDGMENT /ORDER : This revision is arising out of judgment dated 19.09.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.184 of 2009 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, wherein the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. in the judgment dated 21.09.2009 in CC No.386 of 2005 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. 2. The brief case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/accused herein was the driver of Lorry Bearing No.AP 10T 3969. On 30.09.2005, both the deceased went to Guntur in Maruti Car Bearing No.AP 9A 4004 as wife of PW1-Sanka Purna Prabhakar Gupta was delivered. On 01.10.2005, while they were returning from Guntur to Vijayawada, at about 12 midnight they reached NH Road at Chinakakani near Vijayalakshmi Weigh Bridge, at that time, the petitioner drove lorry in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed without blowing horn in a wrong direction towards Khaja Village, dashed front portion of Maruti Car, resulting which both the deceased stuck inside the front seat of car and died instantaneously. PW1, who was coming behind the car witnessed the incident and given report to Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, which was registered as a case in Crime No.147 of 2005 under Section 304-A I.P.C. 3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW11 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 4. The Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the revision petitioner/accused preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, but the same was dismissed by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. 6. Being aggrieved, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner. 7. Heard Sri Nagabhushanam Gudapati, legal aid, for the petitioner and Sri Naidana Sravan Kumar, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 8. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court is erroneous and not properly appreciated the testimonies of the witnesses. 7. Heard Sri Nagabhushanam Gudapati, legal aid, for the petitioner and Sri Naidana Sravan Kumar, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 8. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court is erroneous and not properly appreciated the testimonies of the witnesses. The Courts below ought not to have relied upon the evidence of PW1, who is an interested witness, to find the guilt of the accused under Section 304-A I.P.C. Even there is no identification of the accused in this case. More so, the Doctor, who conducted Post-Mortem examination also not examined to speak about the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased and non-examination of material witness is fatal to the prosecution case. 9. Sri Naidana Sravan Kumar, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that PWs.1 and 2 are strangers to the accused. In the chief-examination, PW1 himself stated that he caught hold the accused and when questioned he revealed his name as Venkateswara Rao and the same is mentioned in the report given by PW1 and the cleaner of the lorry was also examined. He further submits that PW1 clearly identified the accused as driver of lorry. Therefore, the Court can safely relied upon the testimony of PW1 and there is no need for any further corroboration nor conducting any identification parade of the accused. The investigating officer seized a trip sheet, which clearly establishes the name of the accused, who is driver of the lorry at that particular time. All these circumstances clearly established not only rash and negligent driving of the accused but also drove it in a wrong direction, resulting two instantaneous deaths. 10. The point that arises for consideration in this revision is : "Whether there is any illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the sentence imposed by the Trial Court as confirmed by the Appellate Court?" 11. It is the settled law that in exercise of revisional power High Court cannot undertake in depth of re-examination of entire evidence and upset concurrent findings of Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. For which, this Court gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659 . For which, this Court gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659 . In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as early as in 2004, this Court is not expected to again reassess the evidence. Moreover, at Para 22 of the said judgment, it was held that Section 397 Cr.P.C., confers power on the High Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior Court. Further held that if necessary, Section 395 read with Section 401 Cr.PC read together, it did not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power and that the exercising supervisory jurisdiction is of a restricted in nature. 12. Even in Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, (1975) 4 SCC 649 , it was held that the High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Sessions Judge or learned Magistrate was correct unless the subordinate Courts finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse, the concurrent finding cannot be disturbed. 13. In the instant case, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that on 01.10.2005 at about 12.00 midnight, while both the deceased travelling in Maruthi Car, when they reached near Chinakakani towards Vijayawada, a Lorry Bearing No.AP 19T 3969 driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner and dashed car, which was coming in opposite direction, resulting the death of both the deceased i.e., Maturi Vinod Kumar and Maturi Subrahmanyeswararao. 14. In order to prove the said fact, the prosecution examined PW1, who was said to be direct witness to the incident. He stated that on 30.09.2005, both the deceased and himself went to Guntur in a car as his wife delivered in a private hospital at Guntur and after seeing his wife, he returned to Vijayawada. On 01.10.2005 he went to Guntur on motorcycle. On 01.10.2005, his brother-in-law and father-in-law left Guntur and proceeded to Vijayawada in Maruti Car and he started on his motorcycle. On 01.10.2005 he went to Guntur on motorcycle. On 01.10.2005, his brother-in-law and father-in-law left Guntur and proceeded to Vijayawada in Maruti Car and he started on his motorcycle. Deceased No.1 was driving the car and deceased No.2 sat by the side of deceased No.1. When they reached Chinakakani, a Lorry Bearing No.AP 10 T 3969 driven in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction as well in wrong direction hit the car, due to crushing, both of them died on the spot. PW1 consistently stated that the petitioner was driver of the lorry and after the incident, accused tried to skulk away but he caught hold of the accused and asked his name and while making enquiries, he escaped from there. Then he presented a report to police. 15. The record reveals that the car was found on the left side of the road and lorry came in opposite direction on the same line in a wrong direction. It can be observed from the scene observation report that there were no skid marks. It was also found by the Appellate Court that the driver of lorry did not take any precaution to avoid the accident, though he was coming in a wrong direction. It is also expected that the petitioner must take precaution to avoid the accident but he did not do so. 16. Simply non-examination of the Doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination, will not tilt the finding of the Courts below. On the other hand, post-mortem reports are marked through the investigating officer, which was unchallenged while marking the documents. More so, PW10, Motor Vehicle Inspector, stated that there were no mechanical defects of the lorry said to be driven by the petitioner. Considering all these facts, both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that accident occurred only due to rash and negligent act of the petitioner, resulting the death of two persons. 17. This Court, after reading the entire evidence of Sessions Court as well the Trial Court do not find any error on appreciation of fact or law, while concluding the proof made by the prosecution against the accused that he drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, resulting two instanteous deaths in the accident. 18. 17. This Court, after reading the entire evidence of Sessions Court as well the Trial Court do not find any error on appreciation of fact or law, while concluding the proof made by the prosecution against the accused that he drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, resulting two instanteous deaths in the accident. 18. So far as the sentence is concerned, on the mitigating factor stated by the accused before the Magistrate that he had wife and children and were said to be dependents on him, took a lenient view and sentenced him for a period of six months alone. 19. The recent judgment in State of Punjab v. Dil Bahadur, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 348, the Hon'ble Apex Court at Para 14 held as follows : "Needless to say, the principle of sentencing recognises the corrective measures but there are occasions when the deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon the facts of the case. In our opinion, it is a fit case where we are constrained to say that the High Court has been swayed away by the passion of mercy in applying the principle that payment of compensation is a factor for reduction of sentence to 24 days. It is absolutely in the realm of misplaced sympathy. It is, in a way mockery of justice. Because justice is "the crowning glory", "the sovereign mistress" and "queen of virtue" as Cicero had said. Such a crime blights not only the lives of the victims but of many others around them. It ultimately shatters the faith of the public in judicial system." 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, considered the same judgment and held that undue sympathy by means of imposing inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and the society cannot endure long under serious threats. If the Courts do not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to personal vengeance. Therefore, the duty of any Court is to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed. 21. If the Courts do not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to personal vengeance. Therefore, the duty of any Court is to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed. 21. In the above said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to a judgment in Mahesh v. State of M.P., (1987) 3 SCC 80 , in which it was observed to give the lesser punishment for the appellants would be to render the justicing system of this country suspect. The common man will lose faith in Courts. 22. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that there are no further mitigating circumstances in this case and also there is no failure of appreciation of evidence as well fact and law by the Trial Court as well the Sessions Court in finding the guilt of the accused. In these circumstances, there are no merits in this revision and liable to be dismissed. 23. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 21.09.2009 in CC No.386 of 2005 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, which was confirmed by the learned in Criminal Appeal No.184 of 2009 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur passed in Criminal Appeal No.120 of 2009, is confirmed. The period of sentence undergone if any by the petitioner, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, to serve the remaining sentence within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the learned Magistrate is directed to take necessary steps. After completion of the said period of sentence, he shall be set at liberty, if he is not required in any other case or crime. 24. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 25. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.