JUDGMENT :

T. Krishnavalli, J.

1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment, dated 20.07.2017 made in Crl. A. No. 43 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindigul, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Dindigul, in CC No. 669 of 2005, dated 20.09.2016.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.04.2005, the accused drove the Mahendra Van TN-55-A-0611 on Dindigul-Batlagundu Road and when he was attempted to overtake the Bus TN-57-D-1819, dashed against the bus, thereby caused simple injuries, grievous injuries and death of two persons. The Inspector of Police, attached to Taluk Police Station, Dindigul has filed a final report against the accused examining the witnesses.

3. The trial court on proper appreciation of the entire materials on record both oral and documentary, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment under section 279 IPC; total fine of Rs. 4,800/- for the offence under section 337 (16 counts) of IPC, in default each two weeks Simple Imprisonment; each 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment under section 338 (12 Counts) of IPC and 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under section 304(A) (2 counts) of IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the petitioner preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, the petitioner is before this Court with this revision.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients required for all the offences with which he stood charged and convicted him for the said offences and none of the witnesses have spoken that the accused has driven the vehicle either rashly or negligently and there is no specific allegation of negligence as against the accused in driving the vehicle and the eye witnesses are interested witnesses and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to acquittal and prays that the criminal revision may be allowed.

5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent/State submitted that both the courts below appreciated the evidence in a proper manner and believed the evidence of the eye witnesses and having regard to the nature of the offences, convicted the petitioner for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and passed proper sentence, which does not require any interference by this Court and the accused is not entitled for acquittal and prays that the Criminal Revision may be dismissed.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. The main contention raised on the side of the petitioner/accused is that there was no evidence for rash and negligent driving of the accused and when there was no evidence for rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused, the accused is entitled to the benefit of acquittal. For that, the learned counsel appearing for the submitted the decisions reported in (2019) 4 MLJ (Crl.) 508 (J. Pugalendhi Vs. State) and (2020) 1 MLJ (Crl.) 406 (Saravanan Vs. State).

8. In this case, PW1 is the complainant and he gave Ex. P1 complaint. PW1 in his complaint stated that on 17.04.2005 at 17.00 hours, he proceeded to Dindigul and when he reached Krishna Wrapper Company, at that time, the accused over took a Government Bus and drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his vehicle and due to it, he and several persons in the offending vehicle sustained injuries and two persons died on the spot and he was taken to the Hospital and then, he gave Ex. P1 complaint to the police.

9. PW1 during his evidence stated that on 17.04.2005 at 4.55 pm, he proceeded towards Dindigul and when he reached Kuttyappatti Krishna Wrapper Company, at that time, the accused