Admit. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. finally.

2. The revision applicant-original accused (hereinafter referred to as "accused") has filed this revision as he has been convicted by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kannad in Criminal Case No.219/2009 for offence punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. For offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, he has been convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer S.I. for 10 days; for offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, he has been convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for 60 days; for offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, he has been convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer S.I. for 10 days. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. The applicant filed Criminal Appeal No.86/2010 before the Sessions Court which came to be dismissed on 24.3.2014. Thus, the present criminal revision application.

4. The case of prosecution in brief is that, on 9.1.2005, at about 9.30 a.m., complainant Kishor Gulabrao Shikare was proceeding by bullock cart on road which goes from Kannad towards Chapaner. He was carrying wheels in his bullock cart for repairs. He reached near field of one Kishor Pawar. At that time, matador bearing No.MH-19-4522 driven by the accused came from behind and dashed against the bullock cart. The bullock cart got pushed in the pit nearby and the Matador proceeded further and fell in the pit and in the accident, the Cleaner on the Matador Shaikh Mujaheed got crushed when the vehicle, while falling in the pit, tilted on the Cleaner side. The complainant filed the F.I.R. at Kannad Police Station against the applicant-accused. Crime No.7/2005 was registered. Investigation was taken up by P.S.I. A.S. Syed. Spot panchanama and inquest panchanama were recorded. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Charge sheet came to be filed against the applicant- accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Accused pleaded not guilty and the prosecution adduced oral and documentary evidence. The trial was completed and the accused came to be convicted and sentenced as stated above and the appeal filed was also dismissed.

5. The learned counsel for applicant-accused has submitted that, although there is evidence of complainant P.W.1 Kishor Shikare and P.W.3 Sheshrao regarding the incident, these witnesses did not depose that the vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner and only the investigating officer deposed that in the investigation it was found that the vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner. He was not witness to the incident. It was argued that, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 does not establish that the applicant-accused was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently. Counsel has taken me through the oral and documentary evidence to stress his point. The argument of the learned counsel for applicant is that, the judgments of the courts below do not show basis for the Courts to conclude that the vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner. The counsel has taken me through spot panchanama (Exhibit 30) to state that as the vehicle fell on Cleaner side, the Cleaner had expired.

6. Learned counsel for applicant relied on the case of Kisan Pandurang Pachange Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 261 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 736] to submit that, in that matter, the High Court had in revision, reappreciated the evidence of witness to come to conclusion that the evidence given by the witness did not give details of rash and negligent manner of driving. It was argued that, the judgment shows that, merely driving vehicle in high speed does not amount to rash and negligent driving. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the case of Mohammed Sannaulla Gausmu