ORDER: The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.196 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Attur. He stood charged for the offences under Secs.279, 304(A) of I.P.C. learned Judicial Magistrate found him guilty and convicted him under Sec.304 (A) of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo six months R.I. and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 in default to undergo three months R.I.

2. On appeal to the first Additional District and Sessions Judge, the conviction and sentence were confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

3. Brief facts are that on 26.4.1996 at about 12.15 p.m., the accused was driving the Anna Transport Corporation bus, bearing registration No.TN 27 N 0541 and the bus was proceeding towards Attur from Salem. At the same time, when the bus was nearing Etthapur railway station, it dashed against the boy viz., Ranjith Kumar, in which, he succumbed to injuries. Loganathan, who had seen the accident had reported the matter to the police. One Raja P.W.2 also had witnessed the said accident.

4. The trial Court, after having analysed both oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to rash and negligent act on the part of the accused and convicted and sentenced him as referred above.

5. Learned senior advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the conviction inflicted upon the petitioner is not valid for the following reasons: (1) The first information report alone is not sufficient to warrant the conviction as it cannot be used as substantive evidence. It can be used either to corroborate or to contradict its maker. (2) The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, the so called eye witnesses are not helpful to warrant the conviction; (3) When the accused was acquitted for the charge under Sec.279 of I.P.C., the conviction under Sec.304(A) of I.P.C. is frustrated and not sustainable.

6. Learned senior advocate has come heavily on the first information report, by pointing but that it was prepared by the police officers and the statement contained in the first information report are not true and correct. He is fair enough in pointing out that in the first information report, the ingredients of Sec.304(A) of I.P.C. find a place, as it contains that the accused drove the bus rashly and negligently and without blowing the horn. But, this part of the statement in the F.I.R. was left uncorroborated by the author of the F.I.R. Loganathan, as P.W.1 Incidentally, he referred to the evidence of P.W.1 Loganathan, who is his evidence has not deposed what he has stated in the F.I.R. what all he has stated is that he was proceeding to the road for fetching water and at that time, a boy (the victim) was also proceeding in the road and at that time, Anna Transport Corporation bus, which was coming from Salem and proceeding to Attur dashed against the boy, in which he died on the spot itself. Except his, statement in the F.I.R., there is no other material to show that the accused drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, which caused the accident.

7. Learned senior advocate also referred to the evidence of P.W.2, Raja who is said to be another eye witness to the occurrence, who in his evidence has stated that he was having lands on the backside of Leprosy Hospital and on the date of the accident, he heard a sound and then seen that the bus hit against the boy in which the boy died on the spot itself. Learned advocate for the petitioner also referred to the evidence of P.W.4 grandfather of the deceased, who also deposed that only after hearing the sound, he turned to the said direction, rushed to that place, where he had seen his grandson had sustained injuries and died on the spot itself. By pointing out the above said evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 he has argued that no one speaks that the petitioner has driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and in the absence of any evidence to that extent, the conviction is unwarranted.

8.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document