Judgment.- This is an appeal directed by the accused-appellant, Appu against the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate convicting him for offences under section 304-A, I.P.C, and under section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The accusation against the accused is that he was driving the bus MSR 2639 of the State Transport Department in a rash and negligent manner and endangering public safety on 12th March, 1970 at about 6-15 p.m. along Poonamallee High Road and knocked down a cyclist by name Shanmugham (deceased), as a result of which he sustained fatal injuries. 3. On the evening of 12th March, 1970 Shanmugham (deceased) was going westwards along Poonamallee High Road on his cycle. P.W. 1 Subramaniam, a carpenter by profession and a friend of Shanmugham, was also going westwards along Poonamallee High Road on that evening. P.W. 1 met Shanmugham near Dasaprakash Hotel and both of them went talking for some distance. They reached the junction of Taylors Road with Poonamallee High Road. It is the evidence of P.W. 1 that he was going behind Shanmugham by about 15 or 20 feet. At that time the bus driven by the accused came fast from behind, the east. The bus overtook P.W. 1 and when it was about to overtake Shanmugham, the front left side of the bus hit his cycle and Shanmugham fell down. The bus stopped after proceeding for about 15 or 20 feet from the place of impact. Seeing Shanmugham’s fall, P.W. 1 stopped the cycle and ran near him. The accused and the conductor of the bus came near Shanmugham and they took him to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital in an Auto-rickshaw. P.W. 1 followed them to the hospital. 4. At about 6-30 p.m.,P.W. 3,Dr. Viswanathan, treated Shanmugham for his injuries and Exhibit P-1 is a copy of the Accident Register. 5. P.W. 6 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation. He received intimation at 6-50 p.m. about the accident from the conductor of the bus. He proceeded to the Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and finding Shanmugham unconscious, he traced P.W. 1 and obtained from him the report Exhibit P-6. He inspected the scene. He noticed the road to be 45 feet broad and the length of the skid marks to exist for a distance of 43 feet from the place of impact. He proceeded to the Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and finding Shanmugham unconscious, he traced P.W. 1 and obtained from him the report Exhibit P-6. He inspected the scene. He noticed the road to be 45 feet broad and the length of the skid marks to exist for a distance of 43 feet from the place of impact. He located the place of impact to be about 12 feet north of the southern platform. He examined P.W. 1, P.W. 2, Thangavelu and others. It is unnecessary for me to deal with the remainder of the prosecution evidence which has been elaborately dealt with in the judgment of the trial Magistrate. Suffice it for my purposes to notice that the plea of the accused is that he drove the bus at a slow speed. He actually stopped the bus at the previous bus stop, namely, the stop just past the Chetput bridge and near door No. 98. While going along the road he heard a noice of impact coming from behind. At that time the bus was near door No. 100. He was going only in second gear at a speed of 14 or 15 miles per hour. He stopped the bus at the very place. He and the conductor got down and saw the cyclist lying 3 feet behind the bus and his cycle lying 2 feet east of it. None was present at the scene. The injured was lifted by the accused and the conductor. They gave him soda and took him to the hospital. The deceased must have carelessly turned his cycle to the right and got it hit by the rear left side body of the bus. In support of his version D.W. 1 was examined. The learned trial Magistrate accepted the solitary testimony of P.W. 1 in support of the proof of the offences against the accused-appellant and rejected the testimony of D.W. 1. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence of P.W. 1, namely, that he was proceeding behind Shanmugham (deceased) at a distance of 15 or 20 feet is unbelievable for the reason that he himself admits in Exhibit P-6 which was not produced on the day of his examination (4th August, 1970) in Court that the bus driven by the accused passed P.W. 1 and Shanmugham and while passing the bus hit against Shanmugham. In other words there is a fundamental discrepancy in the evidence of P.W. 1 between the two positions, (1) that he was going behind Shanmugham at a distance of 15 or 20 feet. Such a piece of evidence if believed would enable P.W. 1 to witness the occurrence; whereas if he had been going along with Shanmugham (deceased) in what is popularly called as riding abreast simultaneously, P.W. I certainly would not have had the opportunity of witnessing the actual manner of the collision or the impact resulting:.n fatal injuries to Shanmugham. It has been suggested that in Exhibit P-6 an averment is made by P.W. 1 to the effect that they were riding abreast simultaneously together. At one place he refuted such suggestion, but in another place he admitted the same to be correct. 7. What is a curious feature in this case is that P.W. 6 did not mark Exhibit P-6, the earliest complaint given by P.W. 1 (whether it be recorded at the scene of crime or at the hospital) it is stated on behalf of the prosecution that the original report given by P.W. 1 is not in file and that it will be traced and marked after having the witness (P.W. 1) recalled. There is no guarantee or safety for assuming that Exhibit P-6 in the case is really given on the date of the accident at 7 p.m. by P.W. 1. A legitimate criticism has been levelled against the prosecution that this document might be one which has been brought into existence far later than the date of examination of P.W. 1. There may be basis or no basis for such a criticism. But it is the duty of the prosecution to mark the document on behalf of and in support of the prosecution case as and when the witness is examined, so that the cloud of suspicion may be dispelled. But unfortunately in this case Exhibit P-6 the original complaint or report given by P.W. 1, was marked nearly two months and four days later than the date of the examination of P.W. 1. I for one condemn strongly such a proof of a document so belatedly by the prosecution after a lapse of two mouths and four days after the examination of P.W. 1 is over. I for one condemn strongly such a proof of a document so belatedly by the prosecution after a lapse of two mouths and four days after the examination of P.W. 1 is over. I would certainly not place any reliance on such a document which forms the basis for the testimony of P.W. 1. There is no difficulty on the part of those who were interested in the success of the prosecution to design the contents of Exhibit P-6 in consonance with the recorded evidence in Court. At any rate there is fictitious appearance vitiating the contents of Exhibit P-6. I hesitate to place any reliance on the contents of Exhibit P-6 which accord with the testimony of P.W 1 in Court. 8. I would hesitate to rely on the testimony of P.W. 1 and bereft of the testimony of P.W. 1 there is no other supporting evidence for the proof of the offences against the accused-appellant. I give the benefit of doubt to the accused appellant and I set aside his conviction for offences under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code and section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also the sentence of fine awarded against him. The fine, if paid, is directed to be refunded to the appellant. The Criminal Appeal is allowed.