Judgment :- This Revision Case has been preferred by the Appellant in Crl.A.No.77 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. 2. The trial Court, through the Judgment, dated 15-02-2002 in C.C.No.152 of 2001, convicted the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. On Appeal, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, dismissed the Appeal, confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence to three months from one year and enhancing the fine amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.4,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision Case. 3. The graveman of the charge against the petitioner is that on 22-08-1999 at about 11-30 AM, he had driven the tractor bearing No.AP 5T 7609 at L.N.S. Colony, Perecherla-Guntur Road, in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and as a result of which the tractor fell in a ditch and that the deceased, who was sitting on the left side mudgar of the tractor, fell down and came underneath the tyres of the tractor and sustained grievous injuries and finally succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. On a report given by one Bejjam Bala Joshi, the police registered a case in Crime No.99 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and after completing the investigation, they laid the charge sheet. 4. The petitioner denied the charges levelled against him and claimed for trial. However, he admitted that he was the driver of the tractor at the relevant point of time. 5. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the Accused, examined PWs.1 to 21 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-14. On behalf of the Accused, none were examined, but Ex.D-1, 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-8, was marked. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, Guntur convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated supra. The Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed confirming the conviction and modifying the as stated above. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the deceased was in drunken state and he himself fell down from the tractor and sustained injuries and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to be responsible for the accident. The Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed confirming the conviction and modifying the as stated above. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the deceased was in drunken state and he himself fell down from the tractor and sustained injuries and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to be responsible for the accident. He further submitted that PWs.15 and 16, who are the eyewitnesses, have also not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, benefit of doubt must be given to the petitioner and the Judgments of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the Judgments of the Courts below and submitted that the very fact that the tractor fell in ditch on the road side and that the accused had driven the tractor in a rash and negligent manner cannot be disputed and the Courts below also, after taking into consideration the entire evidence, rightly found the Accused guilty of the offence and accordingly, sentenced and convicted him and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. Bejjam Bala Joshi, who is said to be the brother of the deceased and who gave the report to the police, has not been examined by the prosecution. Though PWs.1 and 2 are the eyewitnesses, they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PWs.3 to 14 are not the eyewitnesses to the accident and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. PWs. 1 and 16 are the material witnesses in this case. According to them on the date of incident, they along with the accused and the deceased went to Perecherla bushes and that the Accused and deceased purchased liquor from the shop of PW-1 and consumed the same. The deceased requested to drop him at the house of PW-3 and they were proceeding on the tractor, which belongs to the petitioner. 9. According to PW-15, the deceased sat on the lift side of the driver, whereas he sat on the right side of the driver. They were all in drunken state. The driver of the vehicle had driven the vehicle at high speed and consequently the vehicle plunged in the road side ditch. 9. According to PW-15, the deceased sat on the lift side of the driver, whereas he sat on the right side of the driver. They were all in drunken state. The driver of the vehicle had driven the vehicle at high speed and consequently the vehicle plunged in the road side ditch. PW-15 categorically deposed that the petitioner had driven the vehicle at that time and that the deceased fell on the back side iron space between the tractor and trailor, whereas he fell on the right side of the vehicle. 10. The evidence of PW-16 corroborated with the evidence of PW-15. According to PW-16, he sat on the back side of the driver and PW-15 sat on the right side of the driver and the deceased sat on the left side of the tractor. He further deposed that they purchased brandi and consumed the same at Perecherla centre and that as per the request of the deceased, they were proceeding to the house of PW-3 and that they were all in inebriated condition. PW-16 also categorically deposed that the petitioner had driven the tractor in a rash and negligent manner. 11. PW-18, the Doctor, conducted postmortem examination and issued P.M. Certificate under Ex.P-18. Ex.P-9 is the chemical analysis report, which shows that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol. The doctor opined that the cause of the death, to the best of his knowledge, is multiple injuries. 12. PW-19, who is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, deposed that he inspected the crime vehicle on 28-08-1999 at about 11 AM and opined that the vehicle was in good condition and that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defects and accordingly he issued Ex.P-11, Report. PW-20 is the medical officer, who examined PW-15 and issued wound certificate. PW-21 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the case, and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, examined the witnesses, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and after receiving the wound certificate and M.V. report, he filed the charge sheet. 13. PWs.15 and 16 were not cross-examined on the same day and when they were subsequently recalled and cross-examined, they have not supported the case of the prosecution to some extent. They stated that they do not know who had driven the vehicle at the time of accident and had the injury was caused to the deceased. 13. PWs.15 and 16 were not cross-examined on the same day and when they were subsequently recalled and cross-examined, they have not supported the case of the prosecution to some extent. They stated that they do not know who had driven the vehicle at the time of accident and had the injury was caused to the deceased. 14. There are two important circumstances in this case. PWs.15 and 16 were not cross-examined on the same day and they were cross-examined subsequently. In the chief-examination, these witnesses have categorically deposed that the petitioner had driven the vehicle, but they have subsequently denied the same in the cross examination, which clearly shows that they were subsequently won over by the accused. It is settled law that the entire evidence of such witness should be carefully examined and rationale conclusions have to be drawn. There is no need to reject the chief examination part merely because they turned hostile subsequently. It is settled law that a part of the evidence of a witness can be accepted if the same is appearing to be truthful and probable. It is also settled law that the evidence against some of the accused can be accepted and a part of the same may be rejected in respect of some other accused. What is to be see is which part is inspiring confidence and which part is probable and which part is corroborated by the medical evidence or circumstantial evidence. What is to be seen is whether the Court can rely upon such evidence or not and whether the Court can safely base conviction on such evidence. 15. The second important aspect is when the petitioner was in a drunken state, he ought not have driven the vehicle. Driving a vehicle in drunken state itself is an offence punishable under Section 185 of the M.V. Act. The evidence on record shows that the petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the vehicle fell in a ditch and in that process, the deceased fell in between the tractor and trailer and sustained injuries, which resulted in fatal. The very fact that the tractor fell in a road side ditch shows that the vehicle was not under the control of the petitioner. The very fact that the tractor fell in a road side ditch shows that the vehicle was not under the control of the petitioner. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt to say that the petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the deceased died. So, viewed from any angle, the charge levelled against the petitioner stands proved. Therefore, I do not see any grounds to interfere with conviction passed against the petitioner by the Courts below and the same is liable to be confirmed. 16. As far as the sentence is concerned, it appears that the Appellate had already taken a lenient view and modified the sentence and therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the sentence of imprisonment also passed by the Courts below. 17. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.