The prosecution must prove the appellant's identity and culpability beyond a reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to set aside the Judgment pronounced by the Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai made in C.A.No.3 of 2015 dated 30-11-2015, confirming the Judgment pronounced by the Judicial Magistrate, Arni made in C.C.No.177 of 2008 dated 06.01.2015 by allowing the Revision.

2. The petitioner/accused was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, Arni by Judgment dated 06.01.2015 for the offence under Sections 279 & 304(A) of IPC and sentenced him to six months Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default sentence of one month Rigorous Imprisonment. Aggrieved against the same, he has preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai in Crl.A.No.3 of 2015. The Sessions Judge, by Judgment dated 30.11.2015 had dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.01.2008, at about 4.05 p.m. near Arni New Bus stand, the deceased Samundeeswari was walking on the corner of the road. The petitioner who is the State Transport Corporation driver of bus bearing Registration No.TN-21-N- 0901, had driven the bus in the rash and negligent manner. While taking a turn into the bus stand, he had hit the deceased on her shoulder, where she had fallen down and later ran over her head and she died on the spot. In this case, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.19 and marked exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On the appreciation of evidence, the trial Court had convicted the petitioner, which has been confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court as stated above.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that, in this case PW1, who is the complainant of Ex.P1/complaint, is not an eye witness. He has gone to the scene of occurrence after getting information from the PW2, his Village Assistant. PW1 & PW2 are not eye witnesses. PW3, PW4 & PW5 are projected as eye witnesses. All the three persons are car drivers standing from the taxi stand, which is opposite to the accident spot and from there, the accident spot is not visible. PW7, PW8 & PW9 are car drivers who were playing volley ball behind the bus stand. After hearing the noise, they came to the scene of occurrence. The other witnesses are PW13 & PW14, who identified the deceased. The Lower Court had held that PW13 accompanied the deceased and while they were walking together, the accident took place. He further submitted that the PW11 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who examined the vehicle. PW10 is the witness for Observation Mahazar. PW12 is the Post- Mortem Doctor. PW15 is the photographer. PW18 is the Head Constable. He submitted that PW3, PW4 & PW5 could not have seen the accident, further they admit that road is only 20 feet wide and it was turning, from where the bus is to enter the bus stand. In view of the same, there is no possibility of any rash and negligent driving. Further submitted that none from the Transport Corporation Department examined to prove that the petitioner had driven the vehicle on that day. Likewise, the conductor or any other passengers of the bus examined to show that the petitioner was the driver and the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. PW4, in his evidence had stated that the road is full of potholes and it was bumpy. The deceased might have had a fall due to the potholes, got entangled into the rear tyre of the bus. These facts not considered by the trial Court or the Lower Appellate Court.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner. PW3, PW4 & PW5 are the eye witnesses to the accident. They have clearly deposed about the accident and the petitioner being the driver, who driv