P.D. Rajan, J.

This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the judgment in Crl. A. 62 of 1999 of Sessions Court, Kollam. He was charge sheeted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Kottarakkara in C.C.66 of 1996 for offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. After trial, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304 A IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC. He was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304A IPC. He was found not guilty under Section 134A r/w 187 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and acquitted thereunder. Against that, he preferred the above criminal appeal where the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that, he preferred this revision petition.

2. The charge against the accused is that on 29.7.1995 at 1.50 pm, accused was driving a lorry bearing registration No. KL-5A 754 through the Thiruvananthapuram Kottarakara MC road and reached at Sreerangam curve, Chadayamangalam. He was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the vehicle hit against an Ambassador Car KL-2A 7725 which was coming from the opposite direction. As a result, the driver and passengers in the car sustained serious injuries and the driver and one passenger succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. Chadayamangalam police registered the above crime and after completing investigation, laid charge in the trial court. To prove the offence, prosecution examined PW1 to PW15 and marked Ext.P1 to P17 as documentary evidence. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him. He did not adduce any defence evidence. Learned Magistrate convicted the accused.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 is inconsistent each other to prove the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. Ext.P8 scene plan is contradicting the evidence of the prosecution witness. When occurrence evidence and scene plan are inconsistent with each other, it is difficult to find out the place of occurrence. Therefore the prosecution story is unbelievable. The oral evidence of PW1 to PW3 shows that the incident occurred at a curve, Sreerangam valavu, but such a curve is not located by the Village Officer. If that be the position, accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt.

4. In reply, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accident occurred near the curve, which is seen from the scene mahazar, which was not marked as a document in the trial court. The oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 is corroborating the lie of the road at the place of occurrence. In Ext.P8 scene plan the curve is not marked, but the oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 and Ext.P8 is sufficient to prove the rashness or negligence. There is no illegality in the finding of the courts below and no necessity to interfere in the finding recorded by the court.

5. The sound and well established rule of law is that the court is concerned with the quality of evidence for proving or disproving a fact but not with the quantity of the evidence. In negligence there is no intention for a consequence, which happens without any previous planning on the part of the person doing. Apex Court in Badri v. State of Rajasthan (1976 SCC (crl) 60) held that under the evidence Act no particular number of witnesses are required for the proof of any fact, it is a sound and well established rule of law that quality and not quantity of evidence matters. In each case the court has to consider whether it can be reasonably satisfied to act even upon the testimony of a single witness for the purpose of convicting a person. In this case prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 to prove the rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner. The evidence of PW1 shows that on 29.7.1995 at 1.38 pm, he was driving a car and