O R D E R

(This case has been heard through video conference)

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District dated 12.12.2019 in S.C.No.46 of 2019.

2. The respondent police registered the case against the appellant in Crime No.11 of 2017 for the offence under Section 304 (ii) I.P.C. After investigation, the respondent police laid the charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, and the learned Judicial Magistrate taken the charge sheet on file in P.R.C.No.07 of 2018. After completing formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode, since the offence is exclusively triable by court of session. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge taken the case on file in S.C.No.46 of 2019 and made over the case to the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Erode at Gobichettipalayam for disposal in accordance with law.

3. After completing the formalities, the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge taken the case on file and framed the charges against the appellant for the offence under Sec.304 (ii) I.P.C. After framing charges, during the trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 21 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 21, 17 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17. But no material object was exhibited. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses were putforth against the appellant/accused by questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and he denied all the incriminating circumstances as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was produced.

4. On completion of trial and hearing the arguments advanced on either side, and on perusal of the materials placed before the trial court, the Trial Court found the guilt of appellant for an offence under Sec. 304(ii) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has filed the present appeal before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution failed to prove the motive, knowledge of the appellant about submersal of coracle into the water suddenly, which is nothing but an act of God. The P.W.1 and 2 said to have been examined as eye-witnesses and P.W.1 is the complainant, who has lodged the complaint and P.W.2 stated about the manner of the occurrence and also there is a delay in filing the complaint and also delay in sending the prosecution records including the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which makes the prosecution case highly unreliable. The Trial Court failed to appreciate that even during the inquest, the alleged prosecution witnesses P.W.1 and 2 were not examined by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, it creates a doubt on the evidence of P.W.1 and 2, who were introduced for the purpose of this case and it is very doubtful whether they were present at the time of occurrence. The Trial Court failed to note that the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 would show that the appellant had the knowledge about the submersal of the coracle into the river, which is nothing, but act of God and the same cannot be a ground for convicting the appellant for the offence under Sec.304(ii) I.P.C. P.W.1 and 2 are not reliable witnesses and their evidences are contradictory. The learned counsel for appellant would further submit that the appellant no way connected with this case and he has no knowledge and nothing to do with the same. If at all, the appellant committed any offence, neither the offence raised under Section 304-A I.P.C. for the negligent act committed by the