JUDGMENT : Heard. 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.07.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2011 upholding the conviction of the applicant under Section 304-A of IPC, under Section 3/181 and 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act and sentence of RI for 6 months with fine of Rs. 200/- plus usual default, fine of Rs. 300 and Rs. 500 respectively, as passed by the JMFC, Dondilohara (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 249/2009 vide its judgment dated 16.03.2010. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.08.2008, at about 02:30 pm, deceased Rainlal was going towards village, at that time, the present applicant/Driver of LML Freedom motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 12 B 1068 by driving the same, rashly and negligently dashed the deceased Rainlal, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries on his head. He was immediately admitted to the District Hospital Rajnandgaon, but he succumbed to death during the course of his treatment. The incident was witnessed by Roomlal (PW-1), Jhaggarsingh Dewangan (PW-2) and Ashok Kumar (PW-3). Merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P/2. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. V.P. Maheshwar (PW-6). Thereafter, F.I.R. under Section 304-A of IPC was lodged against the applicant/accused vide Ex.P/8 and the applicant/accused was arrested. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 304-A of IPC was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dondilohara, District: Durg (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded not guilty while claiming trial. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicant under Section 304-A and sentenced him to undergo RI for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine amount, 1 month additional RI, and under Section 3/181 and 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act with penalty of Rs. 300 and Rs. 500 respectively, vide its judgment dated 16.03.2010 passed in Criminal Case No. 249/2009. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.07.2012, has upheld the conviction and sentence of the applicant as mentioned in Para 1. Hence, this revision. 5. 300 and Rs. 500 respectively, vide its judgment dated 16.03.2010 passed in Criminal Case No. 249/2009. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.07.2012, has upheld the conviction and sentence of the applicant as mentioned in Para 1. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting and sentencing the applicant for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the vehicle of the applicant turned turtle due to the pit and breaker which were present on the road at the place of accident. Alternatively, he further submits that the incident is of the year 2008, the applicant has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis since 2008, i.e. for more than 15 years and the applicant remained in jail for more than 2 months, therefore, he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision, while submitting that the appellate Court has not committed any infirmity in upholding the conviction and order of sentence of the applicant warranting no interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 8. Before the Courts below, as many as 8 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Roomlal (PW-1), Jhaggarsingh Dewangan (PW-2) and Ashok Kumar (PW-3) are the eye-witnesses to the incident. PW-1 Roomlal has categorically stated in his Court statement that on the date of incident, his father was coming from home after having food, at that time, the applicant/accused who was the driver of the vehicle LML Freedom, by driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed his father, as a result of which, his father fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his head and the applicant/accused also fell down and both were taken to the District Hospital Rajnandgaon. In his cross-examination, he has also stated that there was no speed-breaker present on the road. The statement of this witness was duly corroborated by the statements of Jhaggarsingh Dewangan (PW-2) and Ashok Kumar (PW-3). In his cross-examination, he has also stated that there was no speed-breaker present on the road. The statement of this witness was duly corroborated by the statements of Jhaggarsingh Dewangan (PW-2) and Ashok Kumar (PW-3). Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. applicant for offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, which also shows that applicant was negligent in causing the accident, claiming the life of the deceased. 9. After appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that it was the applicant who was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, caused the accident claiming the life of Rainlal Dewangan and convicted the applicant under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced him. The appellate Court, in turn, upheld the conviction of the applicant under Section 304-A of IPC. 10. Having considered the above evidence, facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the evidence of Roomlal (PW-1), Jhaggarsingh Dewangan (PW-2) and Ashok Kumar (PW-3) coupled with the medical evidence of Dr. V.P. Maheshwar (PW-6) and contents of FIR (Ex.P/8), I am of the view that after considering the evidence on record, the learned JMFC as well as Appellate Court was fully justified in convicting the applicant as such and I do not find any infirmity in the same. 11. Now, I shall consider submission of the counsel for the applicant to reduce the sentence awarded by the appellate Court for the period already undergone by the applicant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182 , 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. 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. 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. 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 man has lost his life due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by the applicant/accused without driving license and insurance, it would not be appropriate for this Court to reduce the sentence already undergone by him. Thus, the argument advanced by the applicant to the effect that the applicant be sentenced to the period already undergone by him is hereby rejected. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court, is a finding of fact based on the evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record, I hereby affirm the conviction and sentence of the applicant. 14. Consequently, the revision is dismissed. The applicant is reported to be on bail and he shall surrender before the concerned trial Court for serving remaining jail sentence.