JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Salem in C.C.No.28 of 2014 dated 18.11.2014 as confirmed in C.A.No.161 of 2014 dated 5.3.2015 on the file of III Additional District Sessions Judge, Salem, acquit the accused/appellant.)

1. The convicted accused is the revision petitioner herein.

2. This criminal revision case has been filed against the judgment dated 05.03.2015 in C.A.No.161 of 2014 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Salem confirming the judgment dated 18.11.2014 in C.C.No.28 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Salem convicting the under Section 279, 304 (A) I.P.C respectively and sentencing him to 1 year R.I in respect of an offence under Section 304A I.P.C and to a fine of Rs.4000/- in default one month simple imprisonment, convicting him under Section 279 I.P.C and sentencing him to a fine of Rs.750/- in default one month S.I, ordering both sentences to run concurrently.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that while P.W.1 was riding his Hero Honda Bike on that day, the bike driven by the accused came from the behind dashed against his vehicle thereby, he lost his balance and the wife of P.W.1 who was travelling in the bike as a pillion fell of imbalance and sustained skull injury and subsequently succumbed to injuries sustained in the motor accident.

4. The trial Court has convicted the accused for the above offences as stated supra and the same was confirmed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem in C.A.No.161 of 2014 and hence the revision filed by the appellant/accused.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner could contend that the prosecution has not proved the involvement of the vehicle in the accident the manner known to law and the presence of P.W.5 and P.W.6, the alleged occurrence witnesses are doubtful and the Motor Vehicle Inspector Report Ex.P4 does not reflect any damage to the accused vehicle and hence involvement of the vehicle in the alleged accident is highly doubtful.

6. Further contended that there is a discrepancy in the date of the accident in Ex.P4 Motor Vehicle Report and there is a material contradiction with regard to the scene of the occurrence and the manner of the accident between the version of P.W.3 and P.W.4 with that of the P.W.12.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has made submissions in support of the judgment of the trial Court.

8. The suggestive case of the defense is that involvement of the accused itself is denied.

9. As stated supra, before the trial Court P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased and also driver of his vehicle and P.W.2 is a Doctor of the deceased. Attestor of the Observation Mahazar are examined as P.W.3 and P.W.4 and Occurrence Witnesses P.W.5, P.W.6. P.W.8 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who had issued Motor Vehicle Report for the both the vehicles under Exs.P3 and P4. P.W.9 is the Doctor through whom post mortem certificate was marked as Ex.P5. P.W.10 and P.W.11 are the police witnesses deposed regarding discharge on their official duty and receipt of Ex.P1 complaint and registration of Ex.P6 F.I.R and preparation of Ex.P7 Sketch and Ex.P2 observation mahazar and filing of the report after investigation.

10. P.W.1 the husband of the deceased, who was riding his two wheeler Hero Honda where deceased was seated as a pillion rider deposed regarding the manner of the accident as stated in Ex.P1 complaint. In the cross examination, he has admitted that the statement and oral complaint of P.W.1 the police has not reduced the oral complaint into writing and he has not informed the police regarding the vehicle No. of the accused party or the name of the accused and hence the burden is upon the prosecution as to how they have identified the vehicle which is dashed from the behind of the vehicle that was proceeding in their front namely P.W.1 two wheeler.

11. In an attempt to make a s