- (1.) THIS Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgement of conviction and sentence dated 11.7.2012 made in CA.No.79/2011 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, confirming the judgement of conviction and sentence dated 28.7.2011 made in CC.No.96/2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Tiruchirappalli, thereby convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Section 304A of IPC to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment.
(2.) THE accident had occurred on 2.2.2011 at about 8.00 p.m., when the deceased Sridharan was riding his Hero Honda Motorcycle on the TV.Kovil Main Road, he was hit behind by the Transport Corporation Bus driven by the Petitioner herein. It is the case of the Prosecution that on the said date, when the deceased was proceeding on the South to North Road on the left side of the road, the Transport Corporation bus driven by the Petitioner in a rash and negligent manner hit behind the motorcycle and due to the said impact, the deceased fell down from the motorcycle and the left rear wheel of the bus ran over his head causing instantaneous death. The Prosecution examined three eye witnesses, PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4 to have witnessed the accident, who are the brothers and friend of the deceased. According to the Prosecution, they were following the deceased in two different motorcycles and they claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. Their evidence disclosed that they were traveling in their respective vehicles to see the mother-in-law of the deceased, who was admitted in the Venkateswara Hospital, which is situated near the place of accident. Their evidence indicated that the accident had occurred in front of the said Hospital. Though the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 did not indicate as to whether they were returning from the Hospital or they were proceeding to the Hospital to see the mother in law of the deceased, but the testimony of PW.4, the friend of the deceased, clearly disclosed that the accident had occurred only when they were returning after seeing the mother in law of the deceased in the Hospital. In fact, PW.4 has clearly stated in his evidence that the deceased was entering to the road from the Hospital and only at that time, the accident occurred. In the rough plan marked as Ex.P5, the place of accident is shown as 4 ft. away from the left side of the road. The total width of the road is 28 ft. It is also seen that the accident had occurred in front of the Hospital. Therefore, it is evident that the accident had occurred on the left side of the road.
(3.) NOW , it has to be seen as to whether the case of the Prosecution has been substantiated by the evidence placed on record that the Petitioner has driven the bus rashly and hit behind the motorcycle, which was going ahead of the bus. As already stated, the evidence of PW.4 has clearly indicated that the deceased was returning home from the Hospital at the time of the accident. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the evidence of PW.5, the Conductor of the bus involved in the accident. Though PW.5 has been treated as hostile, but his evidence is corroborated by PW.4 at least to a certain extent, inasmuch as the deceased had approached the main road from the Western portion of the road i.e. from the entrance of the Hospital. PW.5 has stated that the deceased suddenly had come to the road on the ascending slope, lost his balance and fell in front of the bus. His evidence cannot be discarded, because the damages found on the motorcycle ridden by the deceased support his version that while the deceased was entering into the main road from the down portion to the ascending portion, he had come into contact with the bus and met with the accident.;