This revision is directed against concurrent findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa whereby the Courts below have found the applicant guilty of offences punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of the Penal Code and Section 134 (a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 279 of the Penal Code, simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Section 304-A of the Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 134(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. The facts which are material for deciding this revision application are as under:

On 10/10/2008, at about 6.25 p.m. the victim Noela Baretto was crossing the road between Panaji and Mapusa near JMJ hospital, Porvorim. The applicant was driving mini bus bearing no.GA-01-Z-6665. He gave a dash by his bus to the victim by going to the wrong side of the road. The victim was seriously injured and died on the spot. The applicant as well as the conductor of the bus fled from the spot. Police were informed. They came to the spot, performed panchanama of the spot, caused the dead body to be sent for post mortem after conducting an inquest and caused the bus to be examined by motor vehicle inspector. The police recorded statements of witnesses and on completion of the investigation sent the charge sheet to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa.

3. The learned Magistrate explained the substance of accusation to the applicant who pleaded not guilty. Hence, he was put on trial at which prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses in its attempt to bring home guilt of the applicant. The applicant examined one witness in defence. After considering the prosecution evidence in the light of the defence of the applicant that it was victim herself who was at fault, the learned Magistrate came to hold the applicant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions, who dismissed his appeal. This is how the applicant is before this Court.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and with the help of both, I have gone through the entire evidence on record. PW1/Luis Anthony D'Souza is a pancha at the panchanama of spot drawn up vide exhibit 7 and the sketch prepared vide exhibit 8. He states that he was called for drawing of the panchanama on 6th August. He also admitted that he was related to the victim. The learned Counsel for the applicant, therefore, submitted that since panchanama could not have been drawn up more than two months before the actual incident and since the witness is related to the victim, his evidence is thoroughly useless. There can be no doubt that the evidence of this witnesse has these two deficiencies. As for the first, it is not necessary that every witness should be able to tell the date correctly. Therefore, merely because the witness gave the date as 6th August that in itself cannot result in rejection of this testimony. As for his being related to the victim that too cannot be a ground to reject his evidence, though the police could have taken care to ensure that an independent witness was called for performing the panchanama. The panchanama was drawn up by PW8/Head Constable Balu Jadhav. PW8/Head Constable Balu Jadhav stated that on 10/10/2008 at about 6.25 p.m., he received information about the accident and after making entry of motor vehicle accident bearing no.172/08, he proceeded to the spot. He then states having recorded panchanama of spot. He states that PW2/Ravindra Wadiyar and PW7/Arv