1. The criminal revision is filed by the accused against the judgment of conviction imposed upon him by the trial Court and the appellate Court for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and Section 3 read with 181 Motor Vehicle Act.

2. As per the prosecution case, the accused on 13.2.2005 at 9.30 a.m. was driving his vehicle on Gudiyatham to Palamaner highways very rashly negligently without driving licence and when he was nearing Gosha Munab Depo, Chittoor Gate, he hit against one Noorunnisha. As a result, Noorunnisha sustained several injuries and fracture. She was immediately taken to Gudiyatham Government Hospital by P.W.1 Yunaas who is her niece and thereafter, she was taken to Vellore Government hospital, from where she was referred to Govt. Hospital, Chennai for further treatment and she died at 6.30 a.m. on 8.3.2005 at her residence due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Thereby the accused committed the acts constituting offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and Section 3 read with 181 M.V. Act.

3. The prosecution has, in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined the de facto complainant, daughter of the deceased and eyewitness to the accident, Mahazer witness. Post mortem Doctor, Head constable, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, and Sub-Inspector and Inspector of Police/Investigation Officers as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and has produced Exhibits P-1 to P-9 documents. The trial Court, on the basis of evidence let in, found that the accused due to his rash and negligent driving is solely responsible for the accident, resulting in the death of Noorunnisha, aged about 85 years and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and pay fine. The accused - preferred statutory appeal against the same. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of conviction and sentence of the trial Court. Hence, this criminal revision by the accused before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has in the revision highlighted the following infirmities in the judgment rendered by the trial Court, which was also confirmed by the Appellate Court. It is submitted that the only eyewitness/P.W.1 did not either identify the accused as that the driver of the offending vehicle or deposed anything about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle leading to the accident and excluding her statement there is absolutely no evidence to prove the cause of the accident. It is further submitted that the injuries sustained by the accident victim are not fatal in nature and they are not directly or indirectly led to the death.

5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the prosecution would try to defend the finding of the Courts below by relying upon the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 regarding the involvement of the vehicle in and the driving of the vehicle by the accused at the time of the accident and the manner of the accident and would submit that the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving of the accused.

6. Heard the rival submissions made on either side.

7. As already referred to, out of 10 witnesses examined on the prosecution side, P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 are independent witnesses and P.Ws.5 and 7 to 10 are official witnesses. Out of 5 independent witnesses two witnesses P.Ws.1 and 6 according to the prosecution, eye-witnesses to the accident and out of two witnesses, P.W.6 is eye-witness to the accident/Observation mahazar witness. Though P.W.6 has deposed as if he was present at the scene of occurrence and the accident is caused only due to rash and negligent driving of the accused and P.W.4-Ismail had immediately after the accident taken the injured to Gudiyatham Govt. Hospital and thereafter went to Police Station and lodged the complaint, the same is contradicted by another prosecution witness. According to P.W.1, who is the de facto complainant the injured was his maternal aunt and he saw the vehicle driven by the accused hit his mate