The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in evidence and absence of crucial evidence can raise doubts about the prosecution's case.

The judgment passed in C.A.No.7 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, is under challenge in this revision. The accused is a driver in Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation bus. On 9. 1998 at about 10.00 am, the accused while driving the State transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-0491 from Nagapattinam to Tiruvarur in a rash and negligent manner while overtaking another bus proceeding in front of him had dashed against a tree on the right side of the road causing injuries to P.W.1-Aruldass, a passenger in the said bus at that time. The accused has been charged under Sections 279 & 338 IPC.

2. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the offence, took the case on file as STC.No.1061 of 2002 and issued summons to the accused. On appearance of the accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate has furnished copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C, and when charges were framed and questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty. Before the trail Court, P.W.1 to P.W.9 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 were exhibited. No material objects marked.

3. P.W.1 is the injured Aruldass. According to him, the accident had occurred 2 kms away from Kilvaur at the Tiruvarur Nagapattinam main road while he was proceeding in the said Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN-29-N-0491. According to him, he was sitting on the rear side of the bus along with his family and that the driver of the bus, the accused herein, while overtaking another bus which was proceeding in the same direction, had driven the bus rashly and negligently and dashed against the tree which was standing on the right side of the road resulting grievous injuries on his right upper hand and that he had preferred Ex.P.1-complaint, after he was discharged from the hospital.

4. P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. She would depose that at the time of occurrence, she was also traveling along with P.W.1, her husband in the same bus, and the accused, the driver of the ill-fated bus, while overtaking another bus had dashed against a tree standing on the right side of the road resulting the glass in the window pan got broken, fell on the right hand of her husband P.W.1 causing grievous injury and that P.W.1 was taken to government hospital at Tanjure by the accused in the same bus.

5. P.W.3 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who had inspected the ill-fated bus on 3. 1999 at 13.45 hours and issued Ex.P.2-certificate stating that there is no mechanical defect in the bus, which involved in the accident.

6. P.W.4 is the conductor of the bus which involved in the accident. He has supported the case of the prosecution. He was treated as a hostile witness.

7. P.W.5 is the the Sub-Inspector of Police Keevelur Police Station, who had registered the case on the basis of Ex.P.1-compalint under Keevelur police station Cr.No.520 of 1998 under Section 279 & 338 IPC. Ex.P.3 is the copy of FIR. He had visited the place of occurrence and had drawn a rough sketch Ex.P.4 and has prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P.5 in the presence of P.W.6. The trip sheet for the ill-fated bus bearing registration No.TN-29-N-0491 is Ex.P.6. He has examined the witnesses. But the statements have already been recorded by P.W.8, the head constable, who had made initial investigation in this case. He had arrested the accused and released on bail on 3. 1999. He has obtained wound certificate from the doctor, who had examined P.W.1 after the occurrence. P.W.8 is the head constable, who had recorded the statement of P.W.1

8. P.W.7 is the successor of P.W.5, who after completing the investigation had filed the charge sheet against the accused.

.9. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he would deny his complicity with the crime. He has not examined any witness on his side. After going through the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the charg