( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Chitradurga dated 25-8-1997 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 16/94 affirming the conviction under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC, passed by the learned Magistrate. While affirming the conviction under these sections, the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the conviction under Section 3 (1) read with 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Sessions Judge has sentenced three months RI under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. , and further imposed fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 304-A, in default to undergo one month RI. ( 2 ) MR. Ravi Hosmani for Basavaprabhu Patil strenuously submitted that, absolutely there is no evidence to convict the petitioner as there is no proper identification of the accused and the version of the eye-witnesses cannot be believed and further submitted that non-examination of the Motor Vehicle Inspector is fatal to the prosecution. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. ( 3 ) THE brief facts are that, on 23-4-1989 at about 5 pm in Bamboo Bazar , RMC Road, Davangere, the petitioner-accused (hereinafter shall be referred to as an 'accused ' only) was the driver of the car bearing No. CTU 2525 and drove the car rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt to anybody and so driving the car in this fashion dashed against the bullock and caused injury to the bullock and also to the two persons who were going with the bulllocks and thereafter the said car dashed against Tungamma and Basavaraj who were taking water from the tap by the side of the road. The said Tungamma and Basavaraj sustained grievous injuries and subsequently Tungamma succumbed to the injuries. P. W. 1 Mahantesh filed the complaint against the accused before PW 8 as per Ex. P1. The case was registered in Crime No. 16/98 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A, IPC. , and submitted FIR to the Court. CPI-PW 12 took up further investigation. He visited the spot, conducted the inquest proceeding on the dead body of Tungamma and one Basavaj in the presence of two panchas. The two inquest mahazars are Exs. P6 and P7. He has also recorded the statements of other witnesses. The post-mortem reports are as per Exs. P8 and P9. Exs. CPI-PW 12 took up further investigation. He visited the spot, conducted the inquest proceeding on the dead body of Tungamma and one Basavaj in the presence of two panchas. The two inquest mahazars are Exs. P6 and P7. He has also recorded the statements of other witnesses. The post-mortem reports are as per Exs. P8 and P9. Exs. P10 and P11 are the wound certificates in respect of the injured persons, Ex. P12 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. Ex. P14 is the sketch of the scene of the offence. Ex. P2 is the spot mahazar. After completion of the investigation he has filed the charge sheet against these persons. To this alleged incident PWs. 1, 3, 10 and 11 are the eye witnesses. PWs 5, 6, 7 have turned hostile. But this will not come in the way of prosecution. ( 4 ) IN the light of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Advocate it has to be seen whether there are any circumstances to interfere with the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The evidence of PW 1 makes it very clear that the car was coming in high speed. It is also an admitted fact PW 10 was going along with his bullocks. But in the cross-examination of PW 11 other defence appears to have been made by putting the suggestion that the bullocks were scared of. But the same suggestion is not put to PWs 1 and 3 and even to PW 11. PW 10 flatly denies the suggestion that bullocks were scared. The another argument of the counsel is that, the road was not in good condition. If that is the case, it was not the business of the driver to go in high speed. Of course PW 1 does not state. Although PW 1 states that the car was driven in a high speed that too at 80 kms. per hour, there is no proof of it. Nevertheless it can be inferred that the driver was driving fast. On seeing the persons going with the bullock and on seeing the persons on the road, if according to the counsel the road was narrow, it was the duty of the driver to driven it carefully and slowly. This is also not done. Nevertheless it can be inferred that the driver was driving fast. On seeing the persons going with the bullock and on seeing the persons on the road, if according to the counsel the road was narrow, it was the duty of the driver to driven it carefully and slowly. This is also not done. The way the accident has taken place itself is self explanatory that the petitioner's driving was not only rash and negligent but also drove the vehicle endangering human life. It has hit PW 1 and hit another person by name Basavaraj and another lady by name Tungamma who succumbed to these injuries. One bullock is injured and PW 11 is injured. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel submitted that, there was no proper identification of the driver. This submission is not acceptable in view of the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. Immediately they have seen the accused as they are eye-witnesses to this incident especially PW 1 who was taking the water from the tank (gundy ). Moreover, after hitting the bullocks, after hitting two persons the car dashed against the house of PW 2 and damaged the doors and walls. The house is almost at a distance of 40 feet from the road. This itself clearly indicates the rashness and negligence. No doubt PW 11 says that he could not see the accused as he fell down. This admission alone is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused was not the driver. Hence, the submission that the accused was not properly identified cannot be accepted. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel further took up the contention that the non-examination of the Motor Vehicle Inspector is fatal, in view of the decision in the case of Veerabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka reported in 1989 (2) KLJ 255. In this case, first of all it is observed by the Court that the eye witness did not depose about the rashness or negligence and further it is observed that the conviction was based on the testimony of the witnesses not present during the accident. In the case on hand it is entirely different. There are as many as four eye witnesses in this case speaking to the incident. In my opinion, merely the prosecution has not examined the Motor Vehicle Inspector is not fatal. In the case on hand it is entirely different. There are as many as four eye witnesses in this case speaking to the incident. In my opinion, merely the prosecution has not examined the Motor Vehicle Inspector is not fatal. If there are no eye witnesses and if the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report is marked in spite of the protest by the defence, it is fatal. Just to save the time in the trial so many documents are marked by consent. Once documents are marked by consent, then it is not open to the defence to agitate on this point at the appellate stage or at the revisional stage. There is nothing on record to show that in the case on hand the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report was marked in spite of the protest. Hence, in my opinion this decision will not come to his rescue at all. I am of the firm opinion that, when the document is marked by consent it is not necessary to call upon the prosecution again to examine the author of the document. Judging from any angle, I do not find any ground to interfere with the Judgment. Hence the revision stands dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .