The revisional jurisdiction of the court does not substitute for an appellate review; findings must be perverse or unreasonable for intervention.

O R D E R

The above revision petitions are filed by the State and the de facto complainant challenging the acquittal of the accused for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC in Crl. Appeal No. 70 of

1995 of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The accused is the respondent in both the revision petitions and the allegation is that on 08.08.1991, at 5.10 p.m., he had driven KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KL-15/0407 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life through Palayam Fly over-PMG road and when it reached at the end of the Fly over, it caused to hit the scooter bearing registration No. KL-01/1296 ridden by PW2 along with the deceased as pillion rider and thereby, PW2 fell on the footpath and his wife, who fell on the road, was sandwiched between the back tyre of the bus and the foot path and she succumbed to her injuries.

3. Heard the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/de facto complainant and the learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

4. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the de facto complainant argued that the finding of the appellate court that there is no sufficient evidence to prove any criminal rashness or criminal negligence on the part of the accused is against the evidence of PWs 2 to 5 and Exhibits P7, P10 and P11.

5. But, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused argued that the appellate court analysed the evidence of PWs 2 to 5 in the light of the scene mahazar and Exhibits P10 and P11 reports of the Motor Vehicle Inspector and there is no reason to interfere with the specific findings of the appellate court that the accused was able to stop the vehicle immediately after the accident and that both the vehicles involved in the accident was turning a curve at the time of occurrence and the fact that the deceased was sandwiched between the back tyre of the bus and the footpath on the western side of the road, is a clear indication that the scooter was not hit from behind as alleged by the prosecution and in the absence of any satisfactory evidence, there is no reason to arrive at a conclusion that the accident occurred because of any criminal rashness or negligence on the part of the accused

6. PW2 is the husband of the deceased who was riding the scooter and he only deposed that the accused had driven the bus without sounding horn. However, it is pertinent to note that the prosecution has no such case in the final report. PW3, another occurrence witness, deposed that the accused was driving the vehicle in a negligent manner and in overspeed and the bus caused to hit the scooter from behind; but, his evidence in cross examination shows that he witnessed the occurrence from a distance of 50 meters. It is also well settled that a mere allegation that the vehicle was driven in a high speed is not enough to prove criminal rashness or criminal negligence.

7. The evidence of PW4, another occurrence witness, shows that the accused slowed down the bus and stopped the bus immediately after the accident. However, he also deposed that the accused was driving the bus in a negligent manner and in overspeed. According to PW5, the accused was driving the bus in overspeed and in a negligent manner.

But, the evidence of PWs 2 to 5 in cross examination would clearly show that the scooter and the bus involved in the accident was maneuvering the curve on the road at the place of occurrence and that several other vehicles were also there on the road.

8. A perusal of the scene mahazar would clearly show that the accident occurred on the road between Palayam and PMG juncti