Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The applicant is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 18-3-1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Cri. Appeal No.308/1993, arising out of Judgment and Order dated 22-9-1993 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khed, in Criminal Case No.482/1987 whereby the applicant was convicted by both the lower courts for an offence punishable u/s.279 of IPC and sentenced to suffer S.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs.100/- and in default to suffer S.I. for one week. He was further convicted for the offence punishable u/s.304-A of IPC and sentenced to suffer S.I. for six months and to pay fine to Rs.500/- and in default to suffer S.I. for one month.

3. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this application are as under:

The applicant was driving his vehicle i.e. Truck No.MTF-8518 on the Pune-Nashik Highway and when his vehicle came near Varkad locality, a lady got down from another truck which has came from the opposite direction and suddenly crossed road and dashed against applicant's vehicle and crushed to death below rear wheel of the applicant's vehicle. The applicant went to the police station and lodged complaint and informed to police about the accident. Police recorded statement of witnesses and offence of rash and negligent driving came to be registered against the applicant. Charge-sheet was filed against him u/s. 279 and 304-A of IPC and 116, 78/112 of Motor Vehicles Act. Prosecution examined two eye-witnesses and three other witnesses. Both the lower courts convicted the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that both the lower courts erred in holding the present applicant guilty of rash and negligent driving. He submitted that this finding recorded by both the lower courts is not borne out by the record. He submitted that both the eye-witnesses firstly have not identified the applicant and have not seen accident as it actually happened. He further submitted that both the lower Courts erred in coming to the conclusion that the applicant was driving his vehicle at high speed and secondly, that as a result of rash and negligent driving, accident had taken place. He relied on two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of M.H. Lokre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1972 SC 221 and in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Satish reported in (1998)8 Supreme Court Cases 493. He invited my attention to the deposition of two eye-witnesses.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor Ms. P.H. Kantharia for the State vehemently opposed the statement made by the learned counsel for' the applicant. She invited my attention to the spot panchnama and submitted that spot panchnama clearly indicated that break marks were found at the distance of 25 feet from the spot of incident. She submitted that this itself clearly indicated that the applicant was driving at the very high speed and vehicle had stopped nearly 25 feet from the spot of incident. She submitted that identity of the applicant was not in question, and therefore, though eyewitnesses had not identified the applicant either in test identification parade or in the court that did not in any manner could be considered as lacunae in the prosecution case, since the applicant himself had admitted that accident had taken place and gone to the• police station to lodge the complaint. She submitted that two eye-witnesses clearly deposed about the accident which had taken place, and therefore, the fact that the accident had taken place on the spot, in rash and negligent driving by the applicant had been established. She further submitted that fact that the deceased-Kamalabai had died on the spot itself demonstrates the manner in which vehicle was driven by the applicant. She further submitted that on the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below, this Court may not interfere with the finding of conviction recorded by both the