This revision has been filed to set aside the judgment of conviction imposed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem in Crl.Appl. No. 42 of 2009 dated 12.04.2011 confirming the judgment of conviction imposed by the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem in C.C. No. 80 of 2004 dated 07.05.2009.

2. Initially, the Sub Inspector of Police, Yercaud, who is the respondent herein had registered a case against this revision petitioner in Crime No. 408 of 2003 for the offence under Sections 279 r/w 304 A IPC. Subsequently, on completion of investigation, he had filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate-V, Salem, in which he made allegations against the revision petitioner as he has committed offences under Sections 229, 338, 304 A of IPC.

3. After elaborate enquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Salem in C.C. No. 80 of 2004 by order dated 07.05.2009 came to the conclusion that the revision petitioner is found guilty for the offences under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC, due to which the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to under go six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default one month simple imprisonment and no separate punishment was awarded for the offence under Section 279 IPC.

4. Aggrieved over the said judgment, the revision petitioner had filed Crl.Appl. No. 42 of 2009 before the I Additional District Judge, Salem. After hearing either side submissions, the learned I Additional District Judge, Salem came to the conclusion that findings given by the learned Magistrate are correct and thereby confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to this revision petitioner by the trial Court. In order to check the correctness of the concurrent findings, this revision has been filed before this Court by the revision petitioner.

5. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner made submission that in the trial Court, only three witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. Further, he mentioned that PW1, who is the defacto complainant and PW3 and PW5 who are alleged to be the eye witnesses, deposed contradictory evidence before the learned Judicial Magistrate. The evidence given by the said witnesses does not show any ingredient with regard to the offences committed by the revision petitioner, thereby he prays to allow this revision.

6. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the evidence put forth by the prosecution and the documents exhibited, clearly established the case of prosecution and therefore prays the judgment rendered by the I Additional District Judge, Salem to be confirmed.

7. Now, on going through the judgment passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Salem and other records, it is seen that before the trial Court, the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report was marked as Exhibit P7, in which, the Motor Vehicle Inspector had given opinion that the alleged accident had happened not due to the defect of the vehicle, even though the said document was marked through the Investigating Officer, the learned counsel appearing for the accused had not raised any objection at the time of marking the document. So, it is necessary to check the genuineness of the document entirely. Accordingly, this Court hold that the alleged accident had not happened due to the mechanical defect of the vehicle involved in this accident.

8. Further, in the trial Court, the post-mortem report of the deceased was marked as Exhibit-P5 and the inquest report was marked as Exhibit P6. The contention of the said document was not disputed in the trial Court. So, according to the findings arrived at by the investigating officer in the inquest report and as per the opinion given by the Doctor, it is clear that the death of deceased was happened only due to the alleged accident.

9. With regard to the negligence, the trial Court and the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that the revision petitioner alone