T.V. Nalawade, J.

1. Admit. Notice after admission is waived by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The revision is filed against the judgment and order of Criminal Appeal No. 2/2008 which was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner. The appeal was filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order of S.T.C. No. 793/2005 and this case is decided by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangamner. The Judicial Magistrate has convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under sections 304-A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and six months respectively with tine of Rs. 1000/- each on both counts. He is also convicted for offences punishable under sections 134(a) read with Section 177, 134(b) read with Section 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Both the sides are heard. This Court has perused the original record.

2. The accident took place on 19-9-2005 at about 10.30 a.m. in Sangamner city. The accused-petitioner was driving the bus of the M.S.R.T.C. and his bus was proceeding towards Nashik side. The first informant, Balasaheb, was proceeding on the same direction on his motor cycle. The deceased, a girl aged about 18 years, was proceeding on a bicycle in the same direction. Motor cycle of Balasaheb was behind the bicycle of the deceased and the bus came from the back side. The bus over took the motor cycle and then gave dash to the bicycle of the deceased. The deceased came under the wheels of the bus on Conductor side and she died on the spot.

3. The accused stopped the bus after crossing some distance from the point of impact and he ran away. The number of the bus was MH-31-W-9910. The bus driver did not report about the accident to police and no help was offered by the driver and the Conductor and they did not take care to see as to whether the girl was alive.

4. Balasaheb, the eye witness, gave report at about 11.30 a.m. to Sangamner City Police Station and the crime came to be registered on the basis of his report. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed for the aforesaid offences. The case was tried as regular summons case. The particulars of the offence were read over to the accused and his plea was recorded. The prosecution examined five witnesses including three eye witnesses and the Conductor of the bus. The accused did not give any defence evidence and he took defence of total denial. The trial Court has believed the prosecution witnesses and has held that both, the rashness and negligence, are proved by the prosecution and it is also proved that the death took place due to rash and negligent act of the bus driver the investigating officer was not examined by the prosecution. The trial Court has held that non examination of the investigating officer has not caused prejudice to the accused.

5. The accused has admitted the spot panchanama which is at Exhibit 20, the inquest which is at Exhibit 21, the post mortem note which is at Exhibit 22, the accident report form prepared by the Inspector, Motor Vehicles, which is at Exhibit 23 and the panchanama of the bus which is at Exhibit 24.

6. Balasaheb (P.W. 1), the first informant, who is also eye witness, has given evidence that after overtaking his motor cycle, the bus gave dash to the bicycle of the deceased. His deposition shows that after the dash, the deceased fell towards left side and then she came under the wheels of the bus. His evidence shows that at the time of the impact, the bus was at the distance of 50 feet from his motor cycle.

7. Balasaheb (P.W. 1) hails from the village of the deceased and the deceased was known to him. Nothing is brought on the record to create probability that Balasaheb did not witness the accident. The first information report was given immediately by him even when the close relatives of the deceased were not available and the contents of the F.I.R. are consistent on material points with the oral evidence. They give