Specific evidence of rash and negligent driving is required to establish the offense under Section 304-A IPC.

The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.239 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Cuddalore.

2. The case of the prosecution briefly runs as under:-

On 25.7.2007, at about 8.45 a.m., one Krishnamoorthy was riding his bicycle on the Cuddalore-Thiruvanthipuram Main Road from East to West. At about that time, the accused came driven the Balaji Bus behind him fastly and hit behind the bicycle. The cyclist sustained grievous injuries. This accident was witnessed to by PWs-1, 5 and 6. The injured was taken to Government Hospital, Cuddalore. At the hospital, PW-12/Head Constable of Thirupapuliyur Police Station recorded statement from the injured. He registered this case (Ex.P-5 FIR). He did initial investigation. Subsequently, the case was investigated into by PWs-13 and 14/Police Officers. PW-10/Doctor treated the injured. However, he died of injuries two days later. Postmortem was conducted by PW-11/Doctor. He opined that he died of road accident injuries. PW-9/M.V Inspector inspected the bus and found no mechanical defect in it (Ex.P-2).

3. Relying on the above evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to 6 months R.I and fined him Rs.2,000/-, i/d directed him to undergo 2 months S.I.

4. Aggrieved, the accused has filed Appeal in C.A.No.72 of 2009. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Cuddalore, after hearing both sides, dismissed the Criminal Appeal. In the circumstances, the accused has directed this Revision.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that it is the primary duty of the prosecution to establish that at the time of accident, the accused had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner. This is a basic requirement to convict a person under Section 304-A IPC.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that the witness saying that the accused had driven the vehicle fast would not attract Section 304-A. Even if the witness says that the accused had driven the vehicle at high speed it will not attract Section 304-A IPC because it will not be rash and negligent driving of the vehicle.

7. In this connection, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner also cited the following decisions:-

(i) State of Karnataka vs. Satish {(1998) 8 SCC 493}

(ii) Abdul Subhan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) {2007 Cri.L.J. 1089 (Delhi)}

(iii) State vs. Avadh Kishore {Crl.L.P. No.213 of 2007 dated 30.1.2009 (Delhi High Court)}

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that, in the instant case, PW-6 had simply stated that he had seen the bus hitting on the rear side of the bicycle. He did not say anything further.

9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that the evidence of PWs-1 and 5 is that the bus driver drove the bus fast. That will not amount to he having driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner. Prosecution has thoroughly failed to establish the ingredients required for an offence under Section 304-A IPC. However, this aspect has been missed by both the Courts below. The findings recorded by them suffers from legality. It calls for interference by this Court.

10. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the deceased died of road accident injuries. The evidence of PWs-1, 5 and 6 would show that the accused had came driven the bus fastly and caused the accident. It is because of his such act, the accident took place. In the circumstances, both the Courts have rightly convicted him and punished him. Therefore, no interference is called for.

11. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned judgments, the entire materials on record and the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

12. Now the question before us is whether the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court suffers from legality and propriety, calling for