The prosecution must prove the identity of the accused and elements of rash and negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.

ORDER :

1. The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.106 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolencherry, who was convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 279 , 337 , 338 , 304A of IPC and Section 66(1) r/w Section 192 and Section 3(1) r/w Section 181 of MV Act, as per the judgment dated 02.09.2013. The appeal filed by the revision petitioner against the said judgment of conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha, confirming the judgment of the trial court, as per the judgment dated 19.06.2015 in Crl.Appeal No.472 of 2013. Being aggrieved, the revision petitioner is now before this Court.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused who had no valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, on 28.10.2007 at about 9.40 p.m., drove a bus bearing registration No.KL-17/D 2646 through Ernakulam-Muvattupuzha National Highway, from west to east, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-6/C 3338 which was coming from the opposite direction. As a result of the accident, the rider of the motorcycle sustained fatal injuries and he succumbed to those injuries on the way to the hospital. PW2 to PW8 who were the passengers in the bus also sustained minor injuries in the accident. The bus had no permit to ply through the Ernakulam-Muvattupuzha National Highway.

3. On the basis of the First Information Statement of PW1, the FIR was registered at Puthencruz Police Station as crime No.611 of 2007 by PW14-Sub Inspector of Police. On completion of the investigation, he filed the final report for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337 , 338 , 304A of IPC , Section 66 r/w Section 192, and Section 3(1) r/w Section 181 of MV Act against the accused.

On appearance of the accused, he was served with copies of all prosecution records by the learned Magistrate as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. When particulars of the offences were read over to the accused, he pleaded not guilty.

4. From the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW14 were examined and Exts.P1 to P22 documents were marked. The accused was then examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in the prosecution evidence. No defence evidence was adduced from the side of the accused. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of all the offences and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for each of the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC , to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for each of the offences under Sections 338 and 304A of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for each of the offences under Sections 181 and 192 of MV Act. All the sentences were directed to be undergone concurrently.

5. Being aggrieved, the accused filed Crl.A.No.472 of 2013 before the Sessions Division, Muvattupuzha and as per the impugned judgment dated 19.06.2015, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the passengers in the bus who sustained injuries were examined as PW2 to PW8 before the trial court, did not identify the revision petitioner and the revision petitioner was convicted based on the sole evidence of PW10, who is