The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

G.Jayachandran, J.

The conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.84 of 2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, Trichy District, as confirmed in C.A.No.79 of 2012 by the learned First Additional District Judge, Trichy, are being challenged in the present Criminal Revision Case.

2. The revision petitioner herein is a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. On 01.02.2011, at about 04.30 p.m., while he was driving the bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-2410 from Manapparai to Thuvarankurichi, hit a cyclist by name Raman and thereby caused his death. Hence, he he has been charged for offence under Section 304-A IPC and tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai in C.C.No.84 of 2012.

3. Before the Trial Court, 8 witnesses were examined and 7 exhibits were marked.

4. Before the Trial Court, Thangam (P.W.1) has deposed that while she was walking along with others on the extreme left of Maniyankurichi Vilakku Road, Raman (deceased) was riding his bicycle and going 40 feet ahead them. The Government bus which came rash and negligently, hit Raman and he went dragged along with the bus to some distance. 108 Ambulance was called and he was taken to the hospital. On the way to hospital, he died. She has identified the accused as the driver of the offending bus. Meena (P.W.2) and Chellam (P.W.3) have corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 to P.W.3 are the persons known to the deceased and they were all returning to home after their work.

5. Vijayakumar (P.W.4), the conductor of the passenger bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-2410, had deposed that he did not notice the accident and he was busy in issuing tickets. Insofar as his evidence is concerned, he has not attributed any rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver.

6. The other witnesses are the witnesses for Observation Mahazar, Postmortem Doctor, Motor Vehicle Inspector and the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the First Information Report. The case of the prosecution has been consolidated and spoken through the Investigation Officer, Athiveeraramapandian (P.W.10).

7. The Trial Court referring the injury found on the body of the deceased and the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, who have seen the accident, has held the prosecution has proved the case that the accused has caused the death of Raman due to rash and negligent driving.

8. The lower appellate Court has also confirmed the sentence and conviction of the Trial Court, which has imposed 1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

9. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding against him, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused would submit that the Courts below have failed to see that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are interested witnesses, who are known to the deceased person. Hence, they have not spoken the truth about the accident. The deceased person was carrying sickle with him. He fell down on his own, while climbing a speed breaker. The sickle which was carrying, has caused the cut injury. The loss of blood due to the cut injury has caused the death of Raman. The injuries and the cause of death cannot be attributed to a motor accident. When there is no evidence to show that the revision petitioner was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner, except the interested witnesses of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the Courts below ought not to have convicted the revision petitioner. The doctor (P.W.8), who has conducted postmortem, in his evidence, has specifically deposed that there was a cut injury below the waist of the deceased person. There is no explanation on the side of the prosecution, how a cut injury found in the body of the deceased could occur, if a bus hits the bicycle rider. The doctor admits that there is possibility of sustaining the said injury, if sickle like material impact the body while the bicycle rider fell to grou