Judgment : 1. The criminal revision is filed by the accused against the judgment of conviction imposed upon him by the trial Court and the appellate Court for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and Section 3 read with 181 Motor Vehicle Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, the accused on 13.2.2005 at 9.30 a.m. was driving his vehicle on Gudiyatham to Palamaner highways very rashly negligently without driving licence and when he was nearing Gosha Munab Depo, Chittoor Gate, he hit against one Noorunnisha. As a result, Noorunnisha sustained several injuries and fracture. She was immediately taken to Gudiyatham Government Hospital by P.W.1 Yunaas who is her niece and thereafter, she was taken to Vellore Government hospital, from where she was referred to Govt. Hospital, Chennai for further treatment and she died at 6.30 a.m. on 8.3.2005 at her residence due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Thereby the accused committed the acts constituting offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and Section 3 read with 181 M.V. Act. 3. The prosecution has, in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined the de facto complainant, daughter of the deceased and eyewitness to the accident, Mahazer witness. Post mortem Doctor, Head constable, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, and Sub-Inspector and Inspector of Police/Investigation Officers as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and has produced Exhibits P-1 to P-9 documents. The trial Court, on the basis of evidence let in, found that the accused due to his rash and negligent driving is solely responsible for the accident, resulting in the death of Noorunnisha, aged about 85 years and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and pay fine. The accused - preferred statutory appeal against the same. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of conviction and sentence of the trial Court. Hence, this criminal revision by the accused before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has in the revision highlighted the following infirmities in the judgment rendered by the trial Court, which was also confirmed by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of conviction and sentence of the trial Court. Hence, this criminal revision by the accused before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has in the revision highlighted the following infirmities in the judgment rendered by the trial Court, which was also confirmed by the Appellate Court. It is submitted that the only eyewitness/P.W.1 did not either identify the accused as that the driver of the offending vehicle or deposed anything about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle leading to the accident and excluding her statement there is absolutely no evidence to prove the cause of the accident. It is further submitted that the injuries sustained by the accident victim are not fatal in nature and they are not directly or indirectly led to the death. 5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the prosecution would try to defend the finding of the Courts below by relying upon the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 regarding the involvement of the vehicle in and the driving of the vehicle by the accused at the time of the accident and the manner of the accident and would submit that the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. 6. Heard the rival submissions made on either side. 7. As already referred to, out of 10 witnesses examined on the prosecution side, P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 are independent witnesses and P.Ws.5 and 7 to 10 are official witnesses. Out of 5 independent witnesses two witnesses P.Ws.1 and 6 according to the prosecution, eye-witnesses to the accident and out of two witnesses, P.W.6 is eye-witness to the accident/Observation mahazar witness. Though P.W.6 has deposed as if he was present at the scene of occurrence and the accident is caused only due to rash and negligent driving of the accused and P.W.4-Ismail had immediately after the accident taken the injured to Gudiyatham Govt. Hospital and thereafter went to Police Station and lodged the complaint, the same is contradicted by another prosecution witness. According to P.W.1, who is the de facto complainant the injured was his maternal aunt and he saw the vehicle driven by the accused hit his maternal aunt and she was taken immediately to hospital and thereafter the complaint was lodged. Hospital and thereafter went to Police Station and lodged the complaint, the same is contradicted by another prosecution witness. According to P.W.1, who is the de facto complainant the injured was his maternal aunt and he saw the vehicle driven by the accused hit his maternal aunt and she was taken immediately to hospital and thereafter the complaint was lodged. It is pointed out that though P.W.6 is Muthavalli of Thalaiyatham Masuthi and is known to the persons of his area, neither his presence nor the assistance rendered by P.W.6 is mentioned by P.W.1 in his complaint. Further, the investigating officer P.W.9. in the course of his cross-examination, categorically admitted that P.W.6 Naimudeen, is not an eyewitness and is only hearsay witness. In that event, the evidence of P.W.6 that he is one of the eye witnesses to the accident and his identification of the accused in the Court below as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident cannot be believed. Moreover, none of the witnesses have identified the accused either in the course of the investigation or in the open Court as the driver of the vehicle. It is to be noted herein that the accused was not present as his presence was dispensed with on the date when PW1 was examined as such there is no occasion for P.W.1 to identify the accused. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is hence no evidence to prove that the accused is the person who has actually driven the vehicle at the time of the accident. Even otherwise P.W.1 did not specifically say that the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident in rash and negligent manner which is the direct cause of the accident. It is only spoken by PW1 that the vehicle was driven by the accused in a drunken state but the same is also not supported by any medical evidence. Further P.W.1 has also in the course of his cross examination denied any knowledge about the contents of Ex.PI, complaint. That being the nature of his statement, it does not inspire the confidence of the Court about the involvement of the accused in the accident. 8. Further P.W.1 has also in the course of his cross examination denied any knowledge about the contents of Ex.PI, complaint. That being the nature of his statement, it does not inspire the confidence of the Court about the involvement of the accused in the accident. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has in this connection cited the decision of our High Court in Innasimuthu, In re., 1984 L.W (Crl) 69, wherein our High Court has following the earlier Supreme Court judgments in 1. Syed Akbar v. State of Karnataka (1980) 1 MLJ (Crl) 265 , S.R. Mulani v. State of Maharashtra (1968) MLJ (Crl) 556 and 3. Kothandan, In re., 1972 L.W. (Crl) 52 clearly observed that there could be no general presumption that a person should have driven a motor vehicle in a rash and negligent manner merely because there was an accident, and whether a person is guilty of rash and negligent driving or not, is a question of fact, and Section 304-A, IPC is no exception to the criminal jurisprudence. There must be proof that the rash and negligent act of accused was the proximate cause of the death and there must be direct nexus between the death of a person and the rash or negligent act of the accused. The High Court in the case above referred to in the absence of any evidence to prove the rash and negligent act of the accused was pleased to set aside the judgment of conviction of the Court below. 9. Here also the prosecution has miserably failed to produce any evidence to prove that the accused was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident and the vehicle was driven in such a rash and negligent manner that it resulted in the accident. 10. Regarding the cause of the death, the facts that the accident occurred on 13.2.2005 and deceased died on 8.3.2005 in her house are not disputed. In order to prove the cause of the death Post mortem doctor P.W.5 was examined, who produced Exhibit P-3 Post mortem report which is to the effect that the deceased appears to have died due to fracture of right leg bones both tibia and fibula upper l/3rd with septicemia. In order to prove the cause of the death Post mortem doctor P.W.5 was examined, who produced Exhibit P-3 Post mortem report which is to the effect that the deceased appears to have died due to fracture of right leg bones both tibia and fibula upper l/3rd with septicemia. The opinion of P.W.5 about the proximate cause of death due to accidental injuries as spoken in the course of her chief examination not denied in her cross examination on the side of the accused. In my opinion, the medical evidence is sufficient enough to sustain the finding that the injuries sustained in the accident and Septicemia is the cause of the death or the accident victim particularly in the absence of any theory that after treatment the injured recovered from the injuries sustained in the accident and she sustained fracture and other injuries leading to septicemia, resulting in her death under by different circumstances. 11. However, this Court is not inclined to uphold the finding of guilt passed by the Courts below against the accused, as the prosecution has failed to establish the necessary ingredients regarding the participation of the accused in the accident and his rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused has to be set aside. 12. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence made in C.C. No. 270 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham, Vellore District, as confirmed in C.A. No. 169 of 2007 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Vellore. The accused is acquitted of all the charges. Bail bonds, if any executed by him shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner.