The central legal point established in the judgment is that to prove the offense under Section 304A of IPC, the prosecution must demonstrate rash and negligent driving, and mere speed cannot be equated to culpable rashness and negligence.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397(1) r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner herein in Crl.A.No.77 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District by judgment dated 25.03.2019 confirming the judgment dated 04.11.2017 in C.C.No. 134 of 2006 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District and acquit the petitioner herein of the charges.)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the judgment and conviction passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District in Crl.A.No.77 of 2017 on 25.03.2019, in confirming the judgment and conviction passed by the learned II Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District in C.C.No. 134 of 2006 on 04.11.2017.

2. The petitioner herein is accused in C.C.No.134 of 2006 and he was convicted under Section 304A of IPC and sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.77 of 2017 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District and the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge also confirmed the judgment and conviction passed in C.C.No.134 of 2006, by dismissing the appeal by a judgment dated 25.03.2019.

3. According to the prosecution case, on 31.03.2006 at about 19.15 hours, in the main road of Kathiramangalam Vellaipillaiyar kovil Street, opposite to house of Ramalingam, when the deceased Balaya was proceeding from west to east by walk, a bus bearing registration No.TN-46-B-2799, which was came in opposite direction driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Balaya and thereby, he sustained injuries and died on the spot. Thereafter, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Section 304A of IPC. After the occurrence, the complaint Ex.P1 was given by P.W.1 and based on the complaint given by P.W.1, P.W.9 registered FIR, Ex.P2. Thereafter, the case has been investigated by P.W.1 and after investigation, they filed final report as against the petitioner under Section 304A of IPC. Thereafter, the accused was served copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate after hearing both sides has framed charge under Section 304A of IPC and read over and explained about the charge and the accused denied the charge.

4. The prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 and on the side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked. After examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused were examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., with regard to incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution evidences. The accused denied the evidences.

5. Upon perusing the oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.77 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kumbakonam and the Appellate Court also dismissed the same, by a judgment dated 25.03.2019 and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner has filed the present revision case on the following grounds:

The Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that there is a delay of five days in reaching the FIR to Court. The eye witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.4 deposed that the vehicle was driven in high speed and there is no absolutely legal evidence to connect the petitioner herein with the present Crime. There is no evidence about the rash and negligence drivin