S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS criminal revision case is directed against the judgment in Criminal appeal No. 54 of 1997 dated 6-7-2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khammam confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against him by the Judicial magistrate of First Class, Yellandu in CC no. 524 of 1995 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, two months for the offence under Section 338 IPC, one month for the offence under Section 337 ipc and also imposition of fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under Section 252 read with 177 of the Motor Vehicles Transport rules, 1989 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.

( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19-2-1995 at about 4-45 a. m. , due to the rash and negligent driving of the matador van bearing No. AP 20 T 2388 by the revision petitioner-accused, it turned turtle and fell into a ditch. As a result of which Poddoji Nagamani, Mogili Rambabu and Nacherla Bhagyamma died and 10 other persons sustained injuries. After completion of investigation, the revision petitioner- accused was charge-sheeted for the offences under Section 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC and section 252 read with 177 of the Motor vehicles Rules, 1989.

( 3 ) THE prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 17 and got marked Ex. Pl to Ex. P28 in support of its case. No. oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the revision petitioner-accused.

( 4 ) ON appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the revision petitioner-accused guilty of the offences under Sections 304-A, 338, and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and also under, Section 252 of the Motor Vehicles transport Rules, 1989 and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo the sentences as stated supra.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the said conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner-accused carried the matter in appeal to the learned sessions Judge, at Khammam in Criminal appeal No. 54 of 1997. The learned Sessions judge dismissed the said appeal confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, yellandu. Aggrieved by the said confirmation of conviction and sentence, the present revision is preferred.

( 6 ) THE only ground raised and canvassed by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the revision petitioner-accused and that the accident took place due to the sudden arrival of the bullock cart on to the road across the vehicle.

( 7 ) THE point that has to be considered in this revision case is as to whether there is any rash and negligent driving on the part of the revision petitioner-accused, which led to the accident and which resulted in three deaths and injuries to several persons.

( 8 ) I have carefully perused the judgment of the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge. A close scrutiny of the appendix of evidence with meticulous care discloses that the post-mortem examination report is marked by consent. The Radiologist report is also marked without producing the X-ray films. Therefore, this Court has to consider about the effect of non-examination of the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination and marking the said documents by consent. Section 294 Cr. PC has been introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure, Code, 1973 for the first time. Section 294 Cr. PC reads as follows:no formal proof of certain documents : (1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State government. (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document