ORDER

The Petitioner/acccused has preferred the above revision, challenging the Judgment passed in C.A.No.203 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, confirming the Judgment passed in C.C.No.56/2014 dated 11.11.2016 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi convicting the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. The Trial Court imposed a sentence of one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- in default, to undergo sentence of one month of Simple Imprisonment on the petitioner. The Trial Court did not impose any separate sentence for the offence under Scetion 279 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Kandaswamy was travelling from east to west on Muthur to Kodumudi road in a two wheeler TN 42 V 7431 on 03.06.2014 at about 9:00 PM. When the deceased was nearing Ramya Mahal on the said road, a heavy vehicle lorry bearing registration No. TN 04 AL 3762 came in the opposite direction; that the appellant had overtaken the said lorry in his Bajaj Pulsar vehicle bearing registration No. TN 33 AX

0211 and collided with the vehicle of the deceased who came on the correct side of the road; that due to the collision, the victim fell from his vehicle and to his right side, and the back wheel of the lorry ran over the victim and he died on the spot.

3. The prosecution had examined 10 witnesses on their side. Out of which P.W.1 and P.W.2 are said to be eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.1 was the employer of the deceased who was riding another two wheeler following the vehicle of the deceased. P.W.2 was accompanying P.W1 in the said two wheeler. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the father and mother of the deceased. P.W.5 is the witness to the Observation Mahazer. P.W.6 was the driver of the lorry. P.W.7 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. P.W.8 is a Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the deceased, P.W.9 and P.W.10 are the Investigating Officers. Based on the evidence, the trial Court concluded that the petitioner had caused the death of the deceased by riding the vehicle in rash and negligent manner.

The Appellate Court also confirmed the findings of the trial Court.

4.Heard Mr.S.N.Arunkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Mr.S.Sugendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials available on record.

5. This Court, from the the evidence let in by the prosecution, finds that the manner in which the occurrence has taken place has not been conclusively established by the prosecution. P.W.1, who was the employer of the deceased, is said to have followed the vehicle of the deceased at the time of occurrence. P.W.2 was riding pillion in the vehicle of P.W.1. Both the witnesses admit in their cross-examination that they heard a sound and thereafter saw the deceased lying on the road. It is therefore highly unsafe to rely upon their evidence. P.W.6, the lorry driver, who was originally shown as accused, in his cross-examination would say that they were two persons in the two wheeler that the deceased came in. This is totally contrary to the prosecution case. It is therefore unsafe to believe his version also. The prosecution has neither established rashness nor negligence on the part of the accused. Both the Courts below have convicted the accused on the strength of the deposition of the above witnesses. No other independent witnesses were examined. Both the Courts below have proceeded on the basis that the accused did not have valid license for riding two-wheeler. However, that is not the case of the prosecution. None of the witnesses including the Investigating Officer have spoken about the said fact. The Courts below have relied upon the report of Motor Vehicles Inspector. P.W.7 marked as Ex.P.5 to come to the said conclusion. The report in my view does not conclusively establish that the accused did not have a valid driving license. The report only says that the documents relating to the vehicle were not produced at the time