ORDER :

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of conviction imposed on the revision petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 and 304 (A) I.P.C.

2. The brief facts leading to this revision is as follows:

On 29.04.2008 at about 22.15 hours opposite to Ashok Residency Hotel, Poonamalee Road, Iyappanthangal, a two wheeler bearing registration No. TN-20-AQ-7164 driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner hit the bicycle driven by one Mathappan and Murugan on pillion. Due to the said impact, Mathappan fell down on the mud road and Murugan fell down on the metal road. While Mathappan sustained bruises in his hand, Murugan sustained head injury. He was immediately taken to S.R.M.C. Hospital. Then the Doctor examined him and advised to get admitted as inpatient. He left S.R.M.C. hospital and went to the Government Hospital, Chennai and got admitted as inpatient. On 07.05.2008, he died.

3. The respondent-police registered First Information Report on 30.04.2008 at about 11.30 hours for the offence under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, based on the complaint given by Mathappan. Later, on getting intimation from the Government Hospital, Chennai that Murugan succumbed due to the injuries, the charge was altered to Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC and Section 3 r/w 181 of Motor Vehicles Act.

4. To prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, 12 witnesses were examined as PW-1 to PW-12. 11 exhibits were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. Mathappan the defacto complainant and the injured person in the accident was examined as PW-1. Sivakumar and Karthikeyan, who saw the accident were examined as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. They both saw the accident while coming behind Mathappan at the time of occurrence.

5. Dr. Anandan (PW-4) attached to Sri Ramachandra Medical College (SRMC) Hospital treated Murugan for his head injury and advised him to get admitted as in-patient. The witnesses to the observation mahazer Kamalahasan [PW-5] and Vijayarajan [PW-6] turned hostile. Dr. S. Balasubramanian who conducted autopsy was examined as PW-7. Motor Vehicle Inspector Mr. Senthurvel was examined as PW-8, who has deposed about his report dated 08.05.2008 about the two wheeler bearing Reg. No. TN-20-AQ-7164. PW-9 to PW-11 are the Police Officials, who assisted the Investigating Officer Mr. Muniandi (PW-12) during the investigation. They have deposed about their respective role in the investigation.

6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 3 r/w 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, Convicted him for the offence under Sections 279 of IPC and 304 (A) of IPC, Imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 (A) of IPC. The period of sentence was ordered to run concurrently.

7. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused has preferred appeal before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonamallee in Crl. A. No. 54/2011.

8. Before the lower Appellate Court the accused has contended that the eye witnesses are all interested witnesses and their presence at the time of accident is highly doubtful. While the witnesses to the observation mahazar have turned hostile, the case of the prosecution regarding the manner in which the accident took place gets doubtful. Submitting that even before the death of the injured victim, the observation mahazar has mentioned that case has been registered under Section 304 (A) of I.P.C. which clearly establishes that the prosecution has created the document later to suit their convenience without adverting to the true facts collected during the course of investigation.

9. The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence and on considering the grounds put forth by the accused/appellant, negatived the plea and dismissed the appeal. The conviction