K. HENNA, J.

1. Can the contradicted portions of first information statement be used as 'evidence' to convict a person? Can contents of scene mahazar be treated as evidence, to prove any of the facts stated therein? What is meant by 'evidence'? On a mere marking of first information statement or scene mahazar through the maker, can the contents be treated as 'evidence'? These important questions arise in this case for consideration in this revision.

2. Revision petitioner stands convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code ('Indian Penal Code for short) by Magistrate Court and the said conviction and sentence were confirmed by Sessions Court. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Section 279 Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Sections 304(A) Indian Penal Code This revision is filed against such conviction and sentence.

3. Facts briefly: On 06.11.1992 at about 11.45 a.m, petitioner was driving a bus in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life along the K.K. road from east to west and when the bus reached bear St. Mary's Chappel, petitioner swerved the bus abruptly towards wrong side and knocked down deceased Sri. Thomas, who was standing on the northern tarred end of the road. The deceased was thrown off to the road and left rear wheel ran over his body, by causing fatal crush injuries. He succumbed to the injuries, while he was on the way to the Medical College Hospital.

4. The prosecution examined PWs-1 to 16 and marked Exts. P-1 to P-16. The accused denied his involvement in the offence and stated that he was not a driver at the time of accident. All occurrence witnesses turned hostile. Hence, both the Courts below placed reliance upon the contents of the scene mahazar, Ext. P-9 and also the portions of the first information statement which are controverted by first informant, to entera conviction against accused. Referring to the contents of the scene mahazar, learned Sessions Judge held thus:

"18. The scene mahazar facts clearly prove the culpable negligence of the driver of the bus involved in the accident. The offending bus proceeded from east to west and its proper side was southern half of the road. Instead of that it not only cross the midline of the road but over stepped to the extreme of wrong side and knocked down ill-fated Sini. K. Thomas who was waiting for the bus on the northern mud margin of the road. Thus, the objective facts proved from the scene mahazar clearly establishes criminal negligence on the part of the offending driver."

(emphasis supplied)

5. Certain portions of first information statement, which were denied by first informant are marked as Ext. P-5(a) and Ext. P-5(b). According to Trial Court, portions of the first information statement are "properly proved" by prosecution, "by reading out the relevant portions to PW-3. who gave first information statement and also by reading out the same portion to P-W 16, the Sub Inspector who admitted that PW-3 gave Ext. P-5(a) and P-5(b) statements before him."

6. The Trial Court also held that place of occurrence noted in Ext. P-9 scene mahazar corroborates Ext. P-5(b)-statement given by PW-3 in the first information statement. The Appellate Court, concurred with Trial Court's findings and confirmed conviction. Relying upon the contents of Ext. P-9, scene mahazar and Ext. P-5(a) and P-5(b), which are the contradicted portions of first information statement, both the Courts below came to the conclusion, "accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and went to the extreme north tarred end, which is a wrong side, and hit against the deceased who was standing there, after swerving the vehicl