The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 80 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sankagiri, Salem District.

2. In the said Court, the accused has been prosecuted for an offence under Section 304-A IPC.

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

(1) On 27.9.2007, at about 7 a.m., on the Samuthiram-Panickanoor Road, the accused came driven the Government Bus TN-27-N-1220 from North to South. At about that time, one Ravi came driven his Motorcycle TN-24 9024 from the opposite side, from South to North. Near Muniyappasamy Temple, the road turns a little and proceed towards the Western side and then proceeds to Samuthiram. At that place, the accused came driven the bus fastly. The bus dashed on the Motorcyclist. Ravi/Motorcyclist fell down the rear wheel of the bus ran over him. He died on the spot. This occurrence was witnessed to by PWs-1, 2 and 7.

(2) PW-1 gave Ex.P-1 complaint to PW-12/S.I of Police at the Magudanchavadi Police Station. He registered this case (Ex.P-6 FIR). The case was investigated into by PWs-13 and 14/Inspectors. The Investigation Officer visited the scene place. In the presence of witnesses, he prepared Ex.P-7 observation mahazar. Drew Ex.P-8 rough sketch of the scene place, examined the material witnesses and recorded their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. At the Government Hospital, Edapadi, PW-10 conducted postmortem on the dead body of Ravi. He opined that the deceased died of road accident injuries (Ex.P-3 Postmortem Certificate).

(3) PW-14/M.V. Inspector inspected the bus as well as the Motorcycle. He found no mechanical defects in the vehicles (Exs.P-4 and P-5 M.V.I Reports). Concluding his investigation, PW-14 filed the Final Report before the Magistrate for an offence under Section 304-A IPC..

4. To establish the offence, prosecution examined Pws-1 to 14 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-9.

5. Upon hearing both sides and on consideration of the evidence, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 304-A and sentenced him to undergo 1 year S.I.

6. Aggrieved, the accused preferred appeal in C.A.No.13 of 2010 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (formerly FTC No. II), Salem. Upon hearing both sides, the Appellate Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal. In the circumstance, the accused has directed this revision.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients required for an offence under Section 304-A IPC. None of the witnesses have spoken that the accused has driven the bus either rashly or negligently.

8. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, a witness stating that the driver drove the bus fastly is not sufficient to hold that the accused has driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner.

9. In this connection, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner 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)}

(iv) State vs. Lucky Bedi {Crl.L.P.700 of 2013 dated 2.12.2013 (Delhi High Court)}

(v) Puttaiah @ Mahesh vs. State by Rural Police {Crl. Review Petition No.1317 of 2010 dated 4.3.2016 (Karnataka High Court)}

10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 7 would clearly show that they have not seen the actual manner of road accident. Even PW-7, in his cross-examination, admits that only after hearing the sound, he came to the scene place. Further, nothing on record to show that in what speed the bus driver had driven the bus.

11. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submits that the evidence of PW-7 and other witnesses would clearly show that the accused came driven the bus fastly and hit on the Motorcyclist, because of his rash driving, the Motorcyclist died on the spot. In the circumstances, the