The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused acted with rashness or negligence; insufficient evidence led to the acquittal of the petitioner.

ORDER

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

The petitioner/accused in C.C.No.463 of 2011 was convicted by the Trial Court by judgment dated 09.06.2017 and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 IPC , to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 337 IPC and to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC . Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court in C.A.No.134 of 2017. The learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court by judgment dated 19.09.2018. Against which, the present revision is filed.

2.The gist of the case is that the defacto complainant/P.W.1 was riding his two wheeler Bajaj Caliber bearing registration No.TN-38-U-0040 on 15.01.2010 at about 12.45 p.m. in Coimbatore-Mettupalayam road proceeding from North to South near Ramakrishna English School with the deceased Rangasamy as pillion rider, at that time, a Tata lorry bearing registration No.-TN-33-N-2939 driven by the petitioner with high speed in a rash and negligent manner came in the same direction and hit the two wheeler of P.W.1, in which, P.W.1 fell on the left side of the road and the pillion rider to the right side of the road and was run over by the rear right side tyre of the lorry. P.W.1 was taken to the Hospital, took treatment from P.W.9, information from the Government Hospital reached the respondent police. One Duraisamy, Head Constable on receipt of information visited the Hospital, recorded the statement of P.W.1/defacto complainant and registered FIR/Ex.P7. P.W.10/Investigating Officer took over the investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar, rough sketch in presence of the witnesses, examined the witnesses present in the accident spot, namely, P.W.3 and P.W.4, rider and pillion rider of another bike who were travelling behind P.W.1. Thereafter, inquest conducted, body of Rangasamy was sent for Postmortem. After getting the postmortem report from P.W.8 confirming the death was due to the accident, both two wheeler and the lorry sent to P.W.7 for vehicle inspection. On completion of investigation, charge sheet filed. During trial, P.W.1 to P.W.10 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no documents marked. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner as stated above which was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. Against which, the present revision filed.

3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in this case P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the projected eye witnesses. P.W.1 in his complaint states that while he was riding his two wheeler, the lorry driven by the petitioner came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the two wheeler and caused the accident. But in his evidence, he states that the lorry brushed his shoulder on the right side when overtaking and P.W.1 fell down to the left side of the road and sustained injuries but the pillion rider who fell on the right side of the road was run over by the right side rear wheels of the lorry. In this case, the deceased Rangasamy caught under the right rear tyre of the lorry. Though it was projected that the lorry hit the two wheeler from behind, it is seen that there is no damage either to the two wheeler or to the lorry. There was no impact of the vehicles. The damage is on the left mirror, left handle bar and front side of the two wheeler. Likewise, the damage to the lorry is on the left rear tyre fender. Further, in the complaint, P.W.1 not identified the petitioner as the person who drove the lorry on the fateful day. In this case, P.W.1 admits that he is a relative of the deceased and the injury sustained by P.W.1