1. At 2.15 p.m. on 18.1.1995 at Krishnapuram along Thiruvananthapuram - Nagercoil Road, a KSRTC bus bearing No.P.403 driven by the revision petitioner and a Maruthi car bearing No.KL 01/B 1819 hit against each other. As a result, Daniel, the driver of the car as well as his father Samuel, one of the passenger sustained injuries to which they succumbed. Pw1, the nephew of Samuel and Pw2, the wife of Daniel, who were other passengers in the car had also sustained injuries. Pw3, a relative of the deceased, who was coming in another car, behind the maruthi car, gave Ext.P1 statement on the basis of which, Pw9, a Head Constable attached to Nagercoil Police Station registered a case as Crime No.29/95 for offences under Section 279, 337 and 304A IPC. The investigation was taken over by the Circle Inspector of Police, Neyyattinkara, who after investigation filed final report against the revision petitioner alleging offences under Sec.279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Neyyattinkara.

2. The revision petitioner, who appeared before the trial court in response to the process, pleaded not guilty when particulars of the offence were read over and explained to him. Hence he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution Pws.1 to 9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. After closing the evidence for prosecution, the revision petitioner was questioned under Sec.313 of the Crl.P.C. He took a plea of total denial. No defence evidence was let in. The learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence arrived at a conclusion of guilty. Consequentially, the revision petitioner was convicted for offences under Sec.279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Sec.279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence under Sec.304A IPC with order to run the sentences concurrently. No separate sentence was awarded for other offences. The driving licence of the revision petitioner was suspended for a period of one year. Though the revision petitioner preferred Crl.Appeal No.271/2000 before the Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, he was unsuccessful. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner admitted the occurrence. But, he submitted that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the driver of the car and that the revision petitioner was neither negligent nor rash.

4. The identity of the revision petitioner as the driver of the bus was not disputed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. On the other hand, it was proved by Ext.P3 reply given by Pw5, an Inspector attached to the KSRTC. Ext.P3 was issued in reply to Ext.P2 notice issued by the investigating officer as to who was the driver of the bus. It was informed by Pw5 that the revision petitioner was the driver of the bus at the time of accident. Neither Ext.P3 nor the evidence of Pw5 on that aspect was disputed. Thus the identity of the revision petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle was proved beyond the shadow of doubt by the unchallenged testimony of Pw5 supported by Ext.P3.

5. In support of the prosecution allegation, Pws.1 to 4 were examined, of whom Pw4, a passenger in the car and a relative of the deceased didn't support the prosecution. Pw3, the relative who had given evidence supporting the occurrence. A reading of Ext.P1 given by Pw3 would show that he had, in fact, not seen the incident. He reached the spot in another car only after the incident. As per the statement in Ext.P1 when he reached the spot the accident had already occurred. Since he had not stated in Ext.P1 that he had witnessed the occurrence, his evidence in the box as if he had witnessed the incident is not reliable.

6. Pw1, a nephew of deceased Samuel and Pw2, the wife of deceased Daniel, who were passengers in the ca