S.N. Pathak, J.
1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 28-7-2000 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, I Katihar in Cr. Appeal No. 18/96. Revisionist was convicted by the trial Court in its judgment dated 20-4-1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in GR Case No. 730/90, Trial No. 8/96 under Sections 279, 304A, 337 and 338 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo Rl for one year for the offence under Section 304A IPC and same sentence was awarded nor the offence under Section 338, IPC. He was further sentenced to under Rl for 3 months under Section 379, IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. It has been submitted that there was no evidence that the revisionist was driving the concerned truck at the relevant time and he was negligent. Circumstances rather indicated that the truck was being driven on its right side. i.e. left side of the road whereas Ambassador car in which the deceased was sitting was on the wrong side of the road i.e. on right side of the road. Moreover, the IO failed to get the ambassador car checked by MVI which could fix whether the ambassador car car was driving on its wrong side.
3. On the aforesaid grounds, this revision has sought to assail the judgments of the two courts below. I find that the trial Court and the appellant Court on the basis of the evidence, whatever, it may be held that revisionist was negligent in driving his truck on the national high way causing head-on collusion with the ambassador car in which all occupants sitting in the car died. In case of head-on collusion of a car and truck chance of the car being thrown away this side or that side cannot be ruled out. So, the position of the car at the accident side may not necessarily indicate that the car was being driven on its wrong side. It cannot also be assumed that the car driver was so negligent as to drive in the wrong side of the road at 11.30 a.m. so as to receive a jolt from on coming vehicle from the opposite side. So, circumstances did not indicate that the occurrence took place on account of negligence on the part of the car driver and not on account of driver of the truck. There was no mistake regarding identity of the revisionist as the driver of the concerned truck. All circumstances, therefore, show that the order of conviction recorded by the two Courts below does not call for any interference by this Court. No illegality or infirmity has been pointed out in the memo of revision so far findings of fact by the Courts below concerned.
4. It the result, I think there is no necessity to interfere with the findings of two Courts below. Hence this revision is dismissed.