JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397(1) and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, made in C.A.No.17 of 2014, dated 18.03.2015, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, made in C.C.No.39 of 2013, dated 25.03.2014.)

1. The convicted sole accused is the revision petitioner herein.

2. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to challenge the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.39 of 2014, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, dated 25.03.2014, and the same has been confirmed in C.A.No.17 of 2014, by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, dated 18.03.2015.

3(a). The respondent police has filed the charge sheet alleging that on 15.10.2009 at 06.00 a.m., when the deceased viz., Ramala was walking in the main road from Velankanni bus stand to Sebasthiyar Nagar, in the opposite side the revision petitioner/accused, who drove the Government bus bearing Registration No.TN 45/N 1002 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Ramala and the front wheel of the bus ran over the head of the deceased Ramala and caused her death on the spot itself. Hence, a criminal case in Crime No.365 of 2009, for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC was filed as against the revision petitioner/accused.

3(b). In order to prove the guilt of the revision petitioner/accused, on the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW13 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced. No material object produced on the side of prosecution.

3(c). On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has convicted the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved against the said order of conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred an appeal in CA.No.17 of 2014, before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam and by an order dated 18.03.2015, the learned Judge has confirmed order of the Trial Court as mentioned supra. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case.

4. Heard both the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side), appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused would contend that as per the evidence of PW2/Kannan, PW1/Vallinathan was not present at the time of the accident and he came to the spot only after 45 minutes, on hearing the noise and therefore, both Courts below had committed an error in relying upon the evidence of PW1/Vallinathan. Further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused would challenge the evidential value of PW3/Chockalingam, who is the employer of the deceased, by stating that he is not the occurrence witness and in the charge sheet he was shown only as the person who has identified the body and not as an eye witnesses and hence, evidence of PW1 & PW6 cannot be considered, whereas both the Courts below wrongly convicted the revision petitioner/accused based upon those persons evidence.

6. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that PW1/Vallinathan is the husband of the deceased viz., Ramala and he has given the complaint, before the police, which was marked as Ex.P1; PW8 & PW9 are the attestors of Ex.P2/observation mahazar; based upon Ex.P1/complaint given by PW1 before PW11/Inspector of Police, the Inspector of Police had registered a case in Crime No. 365 of 2009 for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC; FIR was marked as Ex.P4 and PW13/Karinanidhi, has done investigation; PW4 is the conductor of bus, his evidence is to the effect that the revision petitioner/accused is the driver of the vehicle, who d