ORDER

This Criminal Revision case has been filed as against the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.33 of 2018 dated 14.08.2018 by the learned IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruppur, thereby confirming the Judgment passed in C.C.No.92 of 2017, dated 14.03.2018 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruppur, thereby convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.02.2016, at about

09.10 a.m, opposite to Saran Hospital in Tiruppur to Perumanallur Road, Poyampalayam, the accused drove his lorry bearing Registration No. TN 33 AU 7490 from south to north in a rash and negligent manner while overtaking the two wheeler which was driven by the deceased bearing Registration No.TN 30 BQ 4419 Bajaj Pulsar, hit the two wheeler by bumper of the lorry and the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries and thereafter he died. Hence, the complaint.

3. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered FIR in Crime No.110 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.92 of

2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruppur. 4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and marked Exs.P1 to P8. On the side of the petitioner, no one was examined and no document was marked. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 of IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed confirming the Judgment passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this revision.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that in order to bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 in which, P.W.2 and P.W.9 were eye witnesses to the occurrence. The other witnesses are only hear say witnesses. They did not see the occurrence. Even P.W.2 is none other than the own cousin brother of the petitioner, who happens to be the eye witness to the occurrence. Therefore, he is the interested witness and his deposition cannot be taken into account for conviction. Even assuming that the evidence of P.W.2 can be considered, he did not whisper about whether the petitioner drove his lorry in a speedy manner and only because of his rash and negligent driving the accident had occurred, due to which the victim died. Likewise, another eye witness P.W.9 did not even whisper about the rashness or negligent driving of the petitioner. Therefore, even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner never drove the lorry in a speedy manner and as such only because of the rash and negligent driving of the two wheeler by the victim, the accident had occurred and he died. Moreover, immediately, after the alleged occurrence, it was in evidence that the victim was taken to Saran Hospital. However, no Accident Register was marked and the Doctor who is alleged to have given first aid to the victim was also not examined by the prosecution. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, these hallows are fatal to the case of the prosecution. Thus, the entire conviction is based on the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.9, which cannot be sustained as against the petitioner. When the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, the Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot be applicable. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner drove his lorry in a speedy manner. Even assuming that the prosecution had proved that the petitioner drove his lorry in a speed