The judgment underscores the requirement for conclusive and determinative evidence to establish guilt in cases of rash and negligent driving, emphasizing the absence of negligence presumption without substantial proof.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the District Judge, Nilgiris, Ootacamund in C.A.No.38 of 2014, dated 10.12.2015, thereby setting aside the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.47 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor, The Nilgiris, dated 21.11.2014, by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.)

1. This Revision is filed to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned District Judge, Nilgiris, Ootacamund in C.A.No.38 of 2014, dated 10.12.2015, thereby setting aside the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.47 of 2012, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor, The Nilgiris, dated 21.11.2014 .

2. The facts of the case is that on 14.02.2012, at about 6.00 p.m., the victim girl Sneka, who returning from School, got into the mini bus, bearing Registration No.TN-43-B-9258. When the bus was proceeding from Coonoor to Sims Park, nearing -Ambal Auto Showroom- a Maruthi Showroom, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, suddenly applied the break, due to the impact, the victim was thrown away from the bus, fell down on the road, sustained multiple injuries and became unconscious. Immediately, she was taken to -Pushpa Nursing Home-. Since there was no doctors, again she was taken to-Nankem-Hospital, where the doctors examined her, advised to take PSG Hospital, Coimbatore. Then, the deceased taken to PSG Hospital, admitted there, on the next day i.e., on 15.02.2012, at about 7.15 p.m, she died.

3. On 15.02.2012, on the complaint of P.W1, P.W.7 registered FIR, for the offence under Sections 279 and 338 IPC., thereafter, after the death of the deceased, Sections were altered. P.W.9 took up further investigation, examined the witnesses present in the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar, rough sketch, recorded the statement of witnesses, conducted the inquest, sent the body for postmortem. P.W.10 conducted postmortem, gave a report confirming that the victim died due to head injuries sustained.

4. The vehicle was sent for inspection. P.W.8, inspected the vehicle, given the report that accident was not due to any mechanical defect. Thereafter, on conclusion of investigation, collection of documents, reports, filed the charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.47 of 2012.

5. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the passengers travelled in the bus, witnessed the accident; P.W.4 working in automobile shop near the scene of occurrence was standing in the road, witnessed the victim thrown away from the bus; P.W.5, on hearing the shout of P.W.4 came out, seen the victim lying on the road with injuries; P.W.6 is the another person, who was standing near the scene of occurrence, witnessed the accident.

6. During the trial, on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.10 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 were marked. On the side of the defence, neither witnesses examined nor documents marked.

7. The trial Court, on conclusion of trial, found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 279 IPC., sentenced him to undergo 3 months S.I., and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment, further sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to under go three months simple imprisonment, for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

8. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Sessions Judge, Udhamandalam in C.A.No.38 of 2014. The Sessions Judge, by Judgment dated 10.12.2015, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial Court. Against which the present Revision.

9. The contention of the petitioner is that in this case 4 witnesses projected as eyewitnesses viz., P.Ws.2, 3,