ORDER 

Animadverting upon the judgment dated 17.11.2005 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Salem in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2005 confirming the judgment dated 23.03.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Attur in C.C.No.238 of 2004, this criminal revision petition is focussed.

2. A 'resume' of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Criminal Revision petition would run thus:

(i) The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C as against the accused for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was conducted.

(ii) On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. On defence side, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. Ultimately, the trial court convicted the accused and imposed sentences as under:

The accused preferred appeal before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Salem, for nothing to be dismissed.

(iii) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed by the lower court, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the gist and kernel, the nitty gritty, the pith and marrow of them would run thus:

Both the courts below committed error in appreciating the evidence.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

4. At this juncture, it is just and necessary to narrate the prosecution version of the incident. As revealed by the police report, on 06.11.2003, at about 9.20 hrs (day time), the accused drove the Government transport corporation bus bearing No.TN-27-N- 1302 in a rash and negligent manner along Attur - Kallakurichi Main road from west to east and dashed the cyclist Balachandran, who was at that time riding his bicycle by having his child Arutchelvan as pillion rider so as to leave him at the Tagore Matriculation Higher Secondary School, and caused grievous injuries and other injuries to Balachandran and that the said Balachandran succumbed to his injuries on 12.11.2003 at the hospital.

5. The points for consideration are as to:

(i) Whether both the courts below were perverse in finding the accused guilty of the offences with which, he was charged, without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it?

(ii) Whether both the courts below were unjustified in convicting the accused in the absence of the Doctor and the Motor Vehicles Inspector having been examined in this case?

Point Nos.1 & 2:

6. Both the points are taken together for discussion as they are inter-linked and inter-woven, inter-connected and entwined with each other.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would advance and develop his argument by inviting the attention of this court to the various parts of the evidence to the effect that the police cooked up the case as against the accused purely for the purpose of enabling the legal heirs of the deceased to claim maintenance; the occurrence could not have taken place in the manner narrated by the prosecution. P.Ws.6 and 7, Palanivel and Senthilkumar were only mahazar witnesses as per police records, but they, were tutored to depose before the court as eye witnesses. PW1, the father-in-law of the deceased would depose as though the driver after the accident stopped the vehicle and got down and saw the incident, whereupon he sped away with the vehicle; whereas the other alleged witnesses would not speak in a similar manner; the deposition of the alleged eye witnesses are artificial; the non- examination of the doctor to prove the post-mortem certificate would lead to the inference that the cause of death might be due to some other factors other than the accident referred to in this case; the Motor vehicles Inspector was not examined to prove the opinion of the Motor Vehicles Inspector recorded in the report that the accident