The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on eyewitness testimony and physical evidence to establish guilt under Section 304(A) of I.P.C.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur in Crl.A.No.19 of 2011 on 15.11.2017, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Srivilliputtur in C.C.No.05 of 2010 on 13.01.2011 and allow this Criminal Revision Petition.)

1. This revision has been filed to set aside the conviction and sentence passed in Crl.A.No.19 of 2011, dated 15.11.2017 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.05 of 2010, dated 13.01.2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.11.2009 at about 10.00 p.m., when the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-01-L-9410 along with his wife, who was travelling as a pillion rider, from Srivilliputtur to Rajapalayam in front of Avita Masala Mill, the petitioner had driven the Jeyavilas bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-AJ-0527 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two-wheeler of the deceased. Therefore, both the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. Hence, the complaint.

3. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.266 of 2009 for the offence under Section 304(A) (2 counts) of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.05 of 2010, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur.

4. On the side of the prosecution, they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.17 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 and on the side of the petitioner, no one was examined and no documents were marked.

5. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) (2 counts) of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year each and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,500/- each and in default, to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment each for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) (2 counts) of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.19 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur and the same was also dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined as eyewitnesses. They had never seen the occurrence and as such, they could not be eyewitnesses to the occurrence. There were contradictions between them, and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any doubt. That apart, they are very close relatives of the deceased and as such, their witnesses cannot be relied upon by the prosecution in order to prove its case. In fact, P.W.1 to P.W.3 travelled behind the two-wheeler, which was driven by the deceased, in an Auto and even then, the Auto driver was not examined in order to prove the charge to home. It is also unbelievable that P.W.1 to P.W.3 travelled behind the deceased two-wheeler to reach Vadakarai from Srivlliputtur. The distance between both places is nearly 45 kilometres. Therefore, no prudent man will take the Auto to travel 45 kilometres. The prosecution had examined the conductor of the bus as P.W.14. He categorically deposed that already the deceased met with an accident in their two-wheeler and fell down the right side of the road. The petitioner never hit the two-wheeler, and he was not the reason for causing the accident. Therefore, P.W.14 turned hostile and even then, the prosecution failed to crossexamine P.W.14. The width of