The main legal point established is the reliance on credible evidence, such as eyewitness testimony and expert reports, to establish guilt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment passed against the petitioner in Crl.A.No.108 of 2015 by the Principal Sessions Court, Coimbatore dated 25.08.2015 confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.177 of 2012 by the Judicial Magistrate No.8, Coimbatore dated 24.04.2015 and acquit the petitioner in Crime No.154 of 2012 on the file of the respondent police.)

1. This criminal revision case is filed against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.108 of 2015 by the Principal Sessions Court, Coimbatore dated 25.08.2015 confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.177 of 2012 by the Judicial Magistrate No.8, Coimbatore dated 24.04.2015.

2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.177 of 2012 tried for offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC. Both the Courts below found him guilty, conviction of one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/- for offence under Section 304(A) IPC and fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 279 IPC, is challenged in this revision petition.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.05.2012 at about 15.45 hours, near NGB College on the Coimbatore, Chitra to Kalapatti Road, the Tanker lorry bearing Registration No.TN-38-AR-2995 driven by the petitioner herein in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against Babu, who was riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-37-BW-4403. The said accident was witnessed by P.W.1 who is the friend of the deceased following him in his two wheeler. Based on the complaint given by P.W.1, prosecution has registered the case in Crime No.154 of 2012 on the file of the respondent police.

3(i). Before the trial Court, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and marked 8 exhibits. Considering the evidence of P.W.1, the eye witness, the rough sketch marked as Ex.P7 and the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector which were marked as Exs.P3 and P6. Both the Courts below held that the accused had driven rashly and negligently, had come on the right side of the road and hit the two wheeler, causing the death of the said Babu.

3(ii). Taking note of the damages caused to the two wheeler and the Tanker lorry, which was on the right side of the mudguard, the Court held that the prosecution has proved that the accused was driving the Tanker lorry rashly.

3(iii). The appeal preferred by the accused before the Principle Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in C.A.No.108 of 2015 was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, this revision petition has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused based on the sole evidence of P.W.1 who is an interested witness and his presence at the time of occurrence is highly doubtful. The Courts below failed to note that the deceased had no valid driving licence and due to his inexperience, he fell on the road and invited the accident.

4(i). Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further submit that the factum of accident cannot lead to a presumption that the accident was caused by the Tanker lorry driver. The in-consistence and contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the point of impact between the two wheeler and the Tanker lorry causes the prosecution case doubtful.

5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that Motor Vehicle Inspector's Reports, Exs.P3 and P6 and the rough sketch Ex.P7, clearly show that the Tanker lorry was proceeding on the wrong side and hit the two wheeler. Omission to collect the driving license of the deceased is not a material in this case. Since the fact that the accident occurred when the Tanker lorry was proceeding on the wrong side of the road, clearly proved through ocular evidence as well as documentary evidence.

6. The prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. P.W.1 is the eye witness to the occurrence, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are witnesses