Judgment :- This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the accused in C.C. No. 295 of 1981 on the file of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kovil-patti, against the judgment in C.A. No. 90 of 1983 on the file of the Court of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, confirming the conviction under sections 304A and 338, Penal Code and the sentence of three months and one month rigorous imprisonment under the above said two sections of the Penal Code awarded by the trial Court. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 2-10-1981 at about 9 a.m., the accused drove the jeep bearing Registration No. TMC 3541 at Sankarankoil in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against witness Pattalichi (P.W. 1) and one Krishnammal, who thereby sustained injuries and the said Krishnammal died thereafter, in spite of treatment having been rendered to her and thereby committed offence punishable under sections 304-A and 338, Penal Code. 3. To prove the above charges, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Pattalichi, P.W. 2 Oorkavalan, P.W. 3, Ganesan, P.W. 4, Ayyammal, P.W. 5 Vedamurthy, P.W. 6 Pias and P.W. 7 Annamalai and marked Ex. P. 1, signature of P.W. 2 in Ex. P. 7 dated 2-10-1981; Ex. P. 2 Post Mortem Certificate; Ex. P. 3, X-Ray film; Ex. P. 4 Accident Register Extract dated 2-10-1981; Ex. P. 5 report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector; Ex. P. 6, dying declaration recorded from the deceased; Ex. P. 7 Observation Mahazar, Ex. P. 8, Rough sketch and Ex. P. 9 Inquest Report. On the evidence thus available, both oral and documentary, the trial court came to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offences under S. 304A and under S. 338, Penal Code and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him, as aforesaid stated. Aggrieved by the said decision of the trial court, the revision-petitioner preferred C.A. 90 of 1983 before the lower appellate court. As already mentioned, the lower appellate court also, after discussing the evidence, came to the same conclusion and confirmed the conviction and the sentences awarded to the revision-petitioner and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said decision of the lower appellate court, the accused has come forward with this criminal revision case. 4. Mr. As already mentioned, the lower appellate court also, after discussing the evidence, came to the same conclusion and confirmed the conviction and the sentences awarded to the revision-petitioner and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said decision of the lower appellate court, the accused has come forward with this criminal revision case. 4. Mr. R. Shanmugham, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner, inter alia, contends that the lower appellate court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and as such, the confirmation of both the conviction as well as the sentence imposed on the revision-petitioner herein by the trial court is not correct and in accordance with law. He further contends that with-respect to the sentence imposed, this court may take into consideration the date of offence and the long time that has gone by in the disposal of this revision and modify the sentence into one of the period of imprisonment already undergone. 5. The point for consideration in this revision, is, whether there is any infirmity in the judgment of the lower appellate court ? 6. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is clear that the accused drove the jeep bearing registration No. T.M.C. 3541 at the time of occurrence. The occurrence is said to have taken place at about 9 a.m. on 2-10-1981. P.W. 7, Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the information from the hospital, reached that place and recorded a statement at 9.30 a.m. itself from deceased Krishnammal. Where there is no connection between the deceased and the accused in the case, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner that it was not the accused, who drove the vehicle at the time of occurrence, cannot be countenanced. 7. The prosecution has let in evidence to show that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused injuries on the deceased and on P.W. 1. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased and P.W. 1, they sustained injuries. It is evident from the prosecution case that Krishnammal and P.W. 1 were walking towards north from the south in an important road in Sankarankoil and the accused drove the vehicle on the wrong side of the road and caused injuries to them. It is evident from the prosecution case that Krishnammal and P.W. 1 were walking towards north from the south in an important road in Sankarankoil and the accused drove the vehicle on the wrong side of the road and caused injuries to them. P.W. 5, Motor Vehicles Inspector has deposed that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle, and he has filed Ex. P. 5 to this effect. Even though the road was a large one in that place, there is no explanation by the revision petitioner as to why he drove the vehicle on the wrong side. P.W. 5, Medical Officer has stated that P.W. 1 sustained three injuries, of which, the third injury was a fracture on the left shoulder and it was a grievous injury. He has marked Ex. P. 3 Medical Certificate and Ex. P. 4, accident register extract. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by her, in the hospital. For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. The Court below has come to the correct conclusion that it was the revision petitioner, who caused the injuries on the deceased and P.W. 1, due to his rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and so, the convictions awarded to the revision petitioner under Sections 304A and 338, I.P.C. are justified. 8. In so far as the sentence is concerned, this court finds that the sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment awarded for the offence under S. 304A, I.P.C. and one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under S. 338, I.P.C. are not in any way excessive or severe. Hence, the sentences are all confirmed. 9. Therefore there is no infirmity in the judgment of the Court below and hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.