ORDER : 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.02.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, C.G., in Criminal Appeal No.116/2011, affirming the judgment dated 27.09.2011 passed in Criminal Case No.84/2011 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagri, District Dhamtari C.G., whereby the applicant was convicted and sentenced as follows:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional S.I. for 10 days Under Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act Fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment for 10 days. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.03.2011 at about 11:30 am, the applicant was driving tractor bearing registration No.CG05-G-1175 carrying deceased- Sarita and other labourers to unload the sand and while returning, at village Kahuabahara market, the tractor was being driven by applicant in a rash and negligent manner, on account of which, deceased- Sarita, who was found sitting over the engine of tractor, fell down in a pit as the applicant suddenly applied the break after seeing the breaker and she came in contact with the wheel of tractor and died while taking her to hospital. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police station Nagri, pursuant to which merg intimation (Ex.P-8) was lodged and FIR (Ex.P-9) was registered against the applicant under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act. Postmortem over the dead body of deceased was conducted by PW-11 Dr. Asha Tripathi, who gave her report vide Ex.P-10 wherein she found lacerated wounds and bruises over the body of deceased and also found fracture of pelvic bone leading to massive heamorrhage shock, on account of which, she died. During investigation, spot map Ex.P-1 was prepared and offending tractor was seized from the applicant vide Ex.P-5 and accused/applicant was arrested. 3. After recording statements of the witnesses, charge sheet was filed against the applicant under Sections 304-A of IPC and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act. The trial Court framed the charge under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act against the applicant which was denied by him and he prayed for trial. 4. 3. After recording statements of the witnesses, charge sheet was filed against the applicant under Sections 304-A of IPC and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act. The trial Court framed the charge under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act against the applicant which was denied by him and he prayed for trial. 4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In his defence, he has examined none. 5. Learned Court of JMFC after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the Para No. 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.02.2012, dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment of the Court of JMFC. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the overall evidence on record for holding the applicant guilty. He further submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. No cogent evidence is available on record against the applicant to connect him in the crime question. He also submits that the alleged tractor was not being driven by the applicant in a rash and negligent manner and the deceased met with an accident on her own negligence. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserves to be set aside and the applicant be acquitted of the said charges. Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the applicant is found guilty, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2011, the applicant has already remained in jail for a period of one month and he is facing lis since 2011, therefore, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that the jail sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. 7. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment learned counsel for the State submits that conviction and sentence of the accused/applicant are strictly in accordance with law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. In order to convict the applicant in the crime, the learned trial Court dealt with the evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-2 Saraswati & PW-3 Ku. Savita, who are the eyewitnesses to the incident and also PW-4 Chandulal. PW-2 Saraswati & PW-3 Ku. Savita have stated in their evidence that on the fateful day, they were also sitting along with the deceased- Ku. Sarita in the tractor as labourers. She has further stated that while returning from unloading sand, the applicant was driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly on the application of break, Ku. Sarita (deceased) fell down and came in contact with the wheel of the tractor, due to which she died. In her cross-examination, she remained firm. Similar is the statement of PW-4 Chandulal who has also supported the version of PW-2 Saraswati & PW-3 Ku. Savita. Evidence of these witnesses inspired confidence and trustworthy. Apart from, PW- 11 Dr. Asha Tripathi was also examined by the prosecution. She has stated that she has conducted the postmortem examination of deceased- Sarita and found lacerated wounds and bruises over her body and also found fracture of pelvic bone leads to massive heamorrhage shock, due to which deceased- Sarita died. 10. Thus, from the evidence of eye-witnesses i.e. PW-2 Saraswati & PW-3 Ku. Savita as well as the evidence of PW-4 Chandulal, who have duly supported the case of the prosecution, it stands proved that it was the accused/applicant, who on the date of incident by driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner without having any valid and effective driving licence, caused the accident, as a result of which, deceased- Ku. Sarita fell down from the tractor and came in contact with the wheel of tractor and died. There is no major contradictions or omissions in the statements of the above witnesses and their evidence also finds corroboration from the medical evidence of PW-11 Dr. Asha Tripathi, who has conducted the postmortem examination and proved the same vide Ex.P-10. Sarita fell down from the tractor and came in contact with the wheel of tractor and died. There is no major contradictions or omissions in the statements of the above witnesses and their evidence also finds corroboration from the medical evidence of PW-11 Dr. Asha Tripathi, who has conducted the postmortem examination and proved the same vide Ex.P-10. In these circumstances, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the prosecution has successfully proved its case under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act against the applicant. I am of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by both the Courts below is the finding of fact based on evidence led by the prosecution which is not perverse and thus needs no interference by this Court. 11. Now considering the submission of the counsel for the applicant to reduce the sentence awarded by the Courts below for the period already undergone by the applicant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of, while considering the concept of adequacy of quantum of sentence for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC has held as under:- “23. In the instant case, the factum of rash and negligent driving has been established. This court has been constantly noticing the increase in number of road accidents and has also noticed how the vehicle drivers have been totally rash and negligent. It seems to us driving in a drunken state, in a rash and negligent manner or driving with youthful adventurous enthusiasm as if there are no traffic rules or no discipline of law has come to the centre stage. The protagonists, as we perceive, have lost all respect for law. A man with the means has, in possibility, graduated himself to harbor the idea that he can escape from the substantive sentence by payment of compensation. Neither the law nor the court that implements the law should ever get oblivious of the fact that in such accidents precious lives are lost or the victims who survive are crippled for life which, in a way, worse than death. Such developing of notions is a dangerous phenomenon in an orally society. Young age cannot be a plea to be accepted in all circumstances. Life to the poor or the impecunious is as worth living for as it is to the rich and the luxuriously temperamental. 24. Such developing of notions is a dangerous phenomenon in an orally society. Young age cannot be a plea to be accepted in all circumstances. Life to the poor or the impecunious is as worth living for as it is to the rich and the luxuriously temperamental. 24. Needless to say that the principle of sentencing recognizes 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 is ultimately shatters the faith of the public in judicial system. In our view, the sentence of one year as imposed by the trial Magistrate which has been affirmed by the appellate Court should be reduced to six months” 12. Further, in the matter of State of Arunachal Pradesh vs Ramchandra Rabidas Alias Ratan Rabidas and another, (2019) 10 SCC 75 , it has been held by the Supreme Court at paragraph 15 as under:- “15. This Court has time and again emphasised on the need to strictly punish offenders responsible for causing motor vehicle accidents. With rapidly increasing motorisation, India is facing an increasing burden of road traffic injuries and fatalities. The financial loss, emotional and social trauma caused to a family on losing a bread winner, or any other member of the family, or incapacitation of the victim cannot be quantified.” 13. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and further considered the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred matters as to sentencing policy and further taking into consideration that one innocent person has lost her life due to rash and negligent driving of tractor even without having any valid and effective driving by its driver/applicant, it would not be appropriate to reduce the sentence awarded from 6 months to 1 month. Thus, the argument advanced by the applicant in this behalf is hereby rejected. 14. In the result, the criminal revision being without any substance is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, it is directed that the applicant shall surrender before the Court below and on surrender, he shall be taken into custody and sent him to jail to incarcerate the remaining jail sentence. 15. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.