This Revision Case has been preferred by the Appellant in Crl.A.No.77 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur.

2. The trial Court, through the Judgment, dated 15-02-2002 in C.C.No.152 of 2001, convicted the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. On Appeal, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, dismissed the Appeal, confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence to three months from one year and enhancing the fine amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.4,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision Case.

3. The graveman of the charge against the petitioner is that on 22-08-1999 at about 11-30 AM, he had driven the tractor bearing No.AP 5T 7609 at L.N.S. Colony, Perecherla-Guntur Road, in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and as a result of which the tractor fell in a ditch and that the deceased, who was sitting on the left side mudgar of the tractor, fell down and came underneath the tyres of the tractor and sustained grievous injuries and finally succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. On a report given by one Bejjam Bala Joshi, the police registered a case in Crime No.99 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and after completing the investigation, they laid the charge sheet.

4. The petitioner denied the charges levelled against him and claimed for trial. However, he admitted that he was the driver of the tractor at the relevant point of time.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the Accused, examined PWs.1 to 21 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-14. On behalf of the Accused, none were examined, but Ex.D-1, 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-8, was marked. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, Guntur convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated supra. The Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed confirming the conviction and modifying the as stated above.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the deceased was in drunken state and he himself fell down from the tractor and sustained injuries and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to be responsible for the accident. He further submitted that PWs.15 and 16, who are the eyewitnesses, have also not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, benefit of doubt must be given to the petitioner and the Judgments of the Courts below are liable to be set aside.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the Judgments of the Courts below and submitted that the very fact that the tractor fell in ditch on the road side and that the accused had driven the tractor in a rash and negligent manner cannot be disputed and the Courts below also, after taking into consideration the entire evidence, rightly found the Accused guilty of the offence and accordingly, sentenced and convicted him and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

8. Bejjam Bala Joshi, who is said to be the brother of the deceased and who gave the report to the police, has not been examined by the prosecution. Though PWs.1 and 2 are the eyewitnesses, they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PWs.3 to 14 are not the eyewitnesses to the accident and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. PWs. 1 and 16 are the material witnesses in this case. According to them on the date of incident, they along with the accused and the deceased went to Perecherla bushes and that the Accused and deceased purchased liquor from the shop of PW-1 and consumed the same. The deceased requested to drop him at the house of PW-3 and they were proceeding on the tractor, which belongs to the petitioner.

9. According to PW-15, the deceased sat on the lift side of the driver, whereas he sat on the right side of the drive