Judgment :- The petitioner herein was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 of I.P.C. in C.C.No.452 of 2000 by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nakrekal. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 22 and also exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-42. On an analysis of the said evidence, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nakrekal came to the conclusion that the petitioner is responsible for the said ghostly accident and convicted by his judgment dated 13.03.2002 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Against the said judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal i.e., Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2002 and the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (I Fast Track Court), Nalgonda, while confirming the said sentence, dismissed the appeal on 29.10.2003 and hence, this revision. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.10.2000 at about 11.00 A.M. a private bus bearing No.AP 9U 2646 proceeding from Hyderabad towards Vijayawada was going at a high speed and hit a car bearing No.AP-9-AH-1269 coming in the opposite direction and rammed into it. As a result of the great impact, three females and three males succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Later, on the complaint made by P.W-1, the Village Administrative Officer of Aitipamula, P.W-8, the S.I. of Police registered a case in Crime No.112 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and took up investigation. P.W-22, the C.I. of Police, who visited the scene of offence, examined P.W-1, conducted panchanama, drew rough sketch and after conducting inquest sent the dead bodies to the Government Hospital, Nalgonda for P.M. examination, where P.Ws-9 to 13 and 19 conducted autopsy over the bodies of the deceased. Later on 24.10.2000, the accused was arrested and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 4. Later on 24.10.2000, the accused was arrested and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the courts below totally relied on the evidence of P.W-2 in holding the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. But according to him, the Courts below have not correctly looked into Ex.P-25 i.e., rough sketch of the scene of offence prepared on 23.10.2000 and if Ex.P-25 is taken into consideration, it is the driver of the car bearing No.AP 9 AH 1269, that is responsible for the said accident. It is his further submission that there is absolutely no evidence that the petitioner is driving the crime vehicle at a high speed and the said accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the petitioner herein. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor while opposing the said submissions stated that it was solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the said bus by the petitioner the said accident took place, where six persons died on the spot and so the Courts below are justified in convicting the petitioner for the said offence. 5. In the light of the said submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court thoroughly examined Ex.P-25 rough sketch. The alleged offence, as per the rough sketch, took place at 104/6 km stone and on the northern side i.e., on the right side of the road leading from Hyderabad to Vijayawada. Nowhere in the evidence it came on record that the vehicle driven by the petitioner was moving in a high speed. From the rough sketch marked as Ex.P-25, it is clear that there are skid marks to an extent of 20 yards and from that, it can definitely be understood that the said car AP 9 AH 1269 was driven at a high speed, on account of which only there were skid marks and it moved towards its right and hit the bus that was driven by the petitioner, which is coming on the left side of the road. If really the said bus was driven at a high speed, on account of the said collusion between the two vehicles, there would be some skid marks. If really the said bus was driven at a high speed, on account of the said collusion between the two vehicles, there would be some skid marks. But from the rough sketch, it is clear that there were no skid marks so far as the bus, driven by the petitioner, is concerned. As stated supra, excepting the evidence of P.W-2, who is the alleged eye witness, there is absolutely no other evidence to say that the bus was driven by the petitioner at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Hence, this Court is of the view that the rough sketch, marked as Ex.P-25, amply clarifies that the petitioner is not at fault and the fault is completely with the driver of the car bearing No.AP-9-AH-1269 and because of the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, the said accident took place and six persons died on the spot. It is true that the ghostly accident took place, but the said ghostly accident is solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car but it cannot be said that it is because of the rash and negligent act of the petitioner. This aspect was not gone into by the Courts below. 6. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.452 of 2000 by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nakrekal, dated 13.03.2002 as confirmed by the appellate Court is hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 of I.P.C. The bail bonds of the petitioner shall stand cancelled and the fine amount if any paid by him shall be refunded to him.