ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner/accused, challenging the judgment, dated 17.12.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2007 by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby, the judgment, dated 29.06.2007, passed in C.C. No. 736 of 2003, by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, convicting the petitioner/accused of the offence under Section 304A of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, was confirmed.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State. I have perused the record.

3. The charge-sheet allegations, in brief, are that on 06.12.2002 evening hours, the de-facto complainant-Thota Vijay, along with his wife-Sridevi and son-Suraj, aged 13 months, was proceeding on Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing registration No. AP-10-J-5576 from their house to Boduppal to visit their relative. When he reached near Mahaveer Emporium, Habsiguda, an APSRTC Bus bearing registration No. AP-09-Z-5820, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the scooter from backside. While the bus ran over the minor boy Suraj resulting in his instantaneous death, Sridevi received severe injuries on her head and the complainant received simple injuries. Immediately, the complainant and his wife Sridevi were shifted to Gandhi Hospital for treatment, where the doctor declared that the wife of the complainant Sridevi was brought dead. On a report lodged by the complainant, the police registered the subject crime, completed investigation, and laid charge-sheet before the trial Court against the driver of the bus for the offence under Section 304A of IPC.

4. To substantiate the case of prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner-accused, no evidence, either oral or documentary, has been adduced.

5. The trial Court, after analyzing the entire evidence on record, holding that the subject accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing registration No. AP-09-0Z-5820, as such, he is liable for conviction, convicted and sentenced the petitioner-accused as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused preferred the subject Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2007 before the Court below. The Court below, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused filed this Criminal Revision Case.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that the lower appellate Court, without properly appreciating the material placed on record, erroneously confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. The ingredients of Section 304A of IPC have not been made out against the petitioner-accused. There are contradictions and material omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The subject accident took place due to the negligent driving of the de-facto complainant, but not due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner-accused. Further, PW-9-Motor Vehicle Inspector categorically deposed that there was no damage caused to the scooter in the subject accident. If really the bus had hit the scooter from backside at a high speed, there could have been damages to the scooter also. This makes the subject accident improbable. Further, the passengers of the subject bus were not examined to prove the rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner-accused. It is a fit case to acquit the petitioner-accused of the charge levelled against him and ultimately prayed to allow the Criminal Revision Petition as prayed for.

7. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the subject accident took place due to the rash an