( 1 ) THIS revision case is filed against the judgment dated 02-01 -2004 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions judge, Visakhapatnam, in Criminal Appeal no. 68 of 2003, under which, the judgment dated 26-09-2003 passed by the learned additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, yellamanchili, in C. C. No. 323 of 1998 was confirmed. ( 2 ) THE sole accused, who is the petitioner herein, was found guilty for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 I. P. C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under section 304 I. P. C. , in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 338 I. P. C. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 337 I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 26-05-1998, the accused drove the lorry bearing No. AP-31-U-1874 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed a Van bearing no. AP-9-U-289 coming in the opposite direction at about 11. 45 p. m. at Poleramma temple, Yellampamchill. On account of which, the van driver died and some occupants of the van were injured. A case in Crime No. 38/ 98 for the offences under Section 304-A, 337 and 338 I. P. C. was registered, investigated and charges sheet was filed. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the prosecution P. Ws. 1 to 12 were examined and Exs. P-1 to P-22 were marked. Out of the witnesses, P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. P. W. 2 is the cleaner of the van, who received injuries but turned hostile. P. W. 3 is the relative of the deceased. P. W. 4 is the photographer. P. Ws. 5 and 8 are the inquest Panchayatdars, who deposed that inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased in their presence. P. Ws. 6 and 7 are the Medical officers, who conducted post mortem examination. P. W. 9 is the Head constable, who conducted inquest over the deadbody. P. W. 4 is the photographer. P. Ws. 5 and 8 are the inquest Panchayatdars, who deposed that inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased in their presence. P. Ws. 6 and 7 are the Medical officers, who conducted post mortem examination. P. W. 9 is the Head constable, who conducted inquest over the deadbody. P. W. 10 is the Medical Officer, who examined the injured P. W. 11 is the Motor Vehicle inspector, who inspected the crime vehicle p. W. 12 is the Sub-Inspector of Police. ( 5 ) OR the basis of the evidence of P. W. 1 and othercircumstantial evidence, the learned megistrate found the accused guilty and sentenced as referred to above. As against the same, the accused filed Criminal Appeal no. 68 of 2003, and the learned IV Additional sessions Judge, Vishakhapatnam, dismissed the same confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, the present revision case. ( 6 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused was not the person who was driving the lorry at the time of accident, and that negligence is not proved. ( 7 ) NOW, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the revision. ( 8 ) ON the question of identity of the accused, both the Courts below have not accepted the contention advanced on behalf of the accused. It is case where the accused himself surrendered before the police after the accident. It can be seen from the evidence that the accused never took the plea that he was not the driver of the lorry at the time of accident. To the Sub Inspector of Police- p. W. 12, it was not even suggested that the accused was not the driver of the vehicle that caused accident. P. W. 1, in his evidence stated that the accused was driving the lorry at the time of accident. In his cross- examination, it is further elicited that he saw the driver, who is the accused, at the time of accident. It is not at all suggested to P. W. 1 that the accused was not the driver of the lorry. Thus, P. W. 1 who identified the accused and P. W. 12, who arrested the accused, stated that the accused was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. It is not at all suggested to P. W. 1 that the accused was not the driver of the lorry. Thus, P. W. 1 who identified the accused and P. W. 12, who arrested the accused, stated that the accused was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. The accused also never stated in his 313 Cr. P. C statement that he was not the driver of the lorry at the time of accident. In the circumstances, the contention that he was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident cannot be accepted. ( 9 ) NOW coming to the question of negligence, the evidence of P. W. 1 is that he boarded the van at Annavaram to go to yelamanchili. When the van reached polerammatemple at Yelamanchili, the lorry came in high speed in the opposite direction and dashed the van. That is what he has spoken about the negligence and rashness. Speed is definitely one of the factors of negligence and other circumstances with regard to the negligence have to be considered. ( 10 ) AT the time of accident, the van in which P. W. 1 was traveling was coming towards Visakhapatnam and the lorry driven by the accused was coming in the opposite direction that means from Vishakhapatnam to Yelamanchili. ( 11 ) EX. P. 7, photograph shows that the lorry was keeping to its left and the van was to its right. Ex. P. 6-Photpgraph shows another lorry coming from some distance. This photograph also shows that the lorry driven by the accused was on the left side of the road, whereas the van driven by the deceased was no the right side of the road. ( 12 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contends that the photographs are showing the position of the vehicles after the accident and that after the accident the vehicles might have been pushed in different directions. But, the position of the vehicles in the photograph especially inex. P. 6 shows that the contention of the learned Public prosecutor is incorrect since the circumstances revealed from the photographs show that the accident has probably taken place on account of negligence on the part of the deceased. Ex. P. 4 also shows the position of the vehicles. Thus, the photographs - exs. P. 6 shows that the contention of the learned Public prosecutor is incorrect since the circumstances revealed from the photographs show that the accident has probably taken place on account of negligence on the part of the deceased. Ex. P. 4 also shows the position of the vehicles. Thus, the photographs - exs. P. 4, 6 and 7 show that the accident has taken place on account of negligence of the driver of the van which came from the right side instead of keeping left. P. W. 1 did not say anything about rashness or negligence other than high speed. Thus, on the basis of exs. P. 4,6 and 7, 1 am inclined to hold that the accused was not negligent. ( 13 ) IN the circumstances of the case, the accused is entitled for acquittal, as there is no conclusive proof pointing at the guilt of the accused. The revision is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside.