JUDGMENT - P.S. SHAH, J.:--- The petitioner has filed this revision challenging his conviction by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, III Court, Kalyan under section 304-A of the I.P. Code which has been confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Thane. 2. The incident occurred on May 28, 1975, at about 4 p.m. According to the prosecution, the deceased Indumati and her friend Mallika (P.W. 4) were going by the road which is in between Shinde Chawl and Municipal Hospital in Shastri Nagar, Dombivli, to attend the function at their school. There is a sharp turn of the road in front of the Shinde Chawl. As soon as they had taken turn, a tanker bearing registration No. B.M.Q.-7856 driven by the petitioner came from behind and knocked them both of them while they were walking on the road by the right side. The deceased Indumati was to the left of witness Mallika. As a result of the impact of the vehicle, Indumati fell on the left side of the road, and Mallika was thrown on the right side of the road and fell in a nearby ditch. Indumati had her skull crushed and died instantaneously. It is alleged that the petitioner was driving the vehicle very fast. He did not blow the horn, and on exemption of his rash and negligent driving, the accident occurred causing the death of Indumati. 3. Relying on the evidence of Mallika and certain circumstances, the courts below came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. 4. Mr. Mehta appearing for the petitioner submitted that the conviction of the petitioner is not justified on the evidence led by the prosecution. He submitted that the courts below failed to take into account the probabilities of the case and the infirmities in the evidence of Mallika who is the only eye-witness to the incident. 5. The prosecution case against the petitioner rests mainly on the evidence of Mallika who claims to have herself being involved in the accident. Beyond the testimony of Mallika, there is no evidence that the petitioner was driving the vehicle at a fast speed. It is not in dispute that just after the place of the accident, the road takes a sharp turn to the right. Beyond the testimony of Mallika, there is no evidence that the petitioner was driving the vehicle at a fast speed. It is not in dispute that just after the place of the accident, the road takes a sharp turn to the right. It is, therefore, not likely that the vehicle was being driven fast as claimed by the witness. It is also to be noticed that the vehicle stopped on the road at a distance of hardly 16 feet. If the vehicle was being driven fast, one would have expected the vehicle to have gone off the road on the left side and would not have stopped on the road itself. Admittedly, there are no tyre-marks which indicates that there was no attempt to stop the vehicle all of a sudden while it was going at a fast speed. The evidence does not show that there were any pedestrians on the road apart from the two girls. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the driver of the vehicle was not able to see the further portion of the road after the curve from the place of impact and, therefore, it was incumbent on the driver to blow the horn. Of course, if the case of Mallika that the vehicle dashed them from its front side can be accepted, then it could be said that it was necessary for the driver to blow the horn which would serve as a warning to the two girls that a vehicle is coming from behind. Mallika tried to make out a case that the tanker came from behind and dashed against them as a result of which she fell on the right side while her companion fell on the left side. In her cross-examination, the witness stated that she was slightly injured. There is, however, no medical evidence to support her case that she was injured. If as is alleged by the witness that the tanker dashed against her also and she was thrown on the right side of the road, she too would have sustained severe injuries. The absence of any injury on the person of Mallika would show that her case that she was dashed by the tanker cannot be accepted. If as is alleged by the witness that the tanker dashed against her also and she was thrown on the right side of the road, she too would have sustained severe injuries. The absence of any injury on the person of Mallika would show that her case that she was dashed by the tanker cannot be accepted. What is more, in her examination-in-chief itself, she gave a different story saying that she was dashed by the rear right side wheel which militates against her case that the dash was by the front side. The description of the condition of the vehicle in the panchanama does not support her case that the impact was from the front side. In her cross-examination, she tried to belittle her injuries by saying that the dash given to her was a nominal one; but this cannot be believed in view of her assertion that she fell in the ditch away from the road. It was her case that the bumper of the front portion dashed against her and within a couple of minutes, she was thrown in a ditch. In that case, it is improbable that she would not sustain any injury. Similarly, the panchanama also shows that all the blood stains were on the rear side and not on the front side ; and only the right side rear wheel had got the blood-stains. Having regard to the infirmities and the contradictory version in the evidence of Mallika herself, it is extremely doubtful that she was present at the time of the occurrence. There is no satisfactory evidence as to under what circumstances, Indumati came under the right side rear wheel. The possibility that she accidentally came under the right side rear wheel without her being noticed by the petitioner cannot be ruled out. It appears from the evidence of P.S.I. Rokde that the information of the accident was first given at the Police Station by one Uday Shetty and it was recorded in writing. However, the prosecution failed to bring it on record. Uday Shetty is also not examined. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the omission to bring on record the first information report raises a serious infirmity. It is for the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The very presence of Mallika at the time of the incident is doubtful. Uday Shetty is also not examined. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the omission to bring on record the first information report raises a serious infirmity. It is for the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The very presence of Mallika at the time of the incident is doubtful. She has given contrary versions in her deposition and there is no other cogent evidence on record to establish that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt. The petitioner is also convicted under section 89 read with section 112 and 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It appear that there was no charge framed under these sections. The appellate Court, however, confirmed the conviction on these three courts on the ground that the petitioner had pleaded guilty to these charges. There is no question of pleading guilty to charges which are not even framed. Under these circumstances, the conviction under these counts also cannot be sustained. 6. In the result, the revision petition succeeds. 7. The petition is allowed ; the impugned orders of both the courts below are quashed and set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of all the charges in respect of which he is found guilty. His bail-bond is cancelled. Fine, if paid, be refunded. 8. Rule made absolute accordingly. ------