Judgment The revision is filed by the accused, driver of the tanker lorry, who has been convicted for the offence u/s.304-A IPC and u/s.184 of MV Act and sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-and in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence u/s.304-A IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to undergo two weeks for the offence u/s.184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the Trial Court, viz., the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, vide judgment dated 17.10.2006 in CC.No.5480/2004 and which conviction and sentence have been confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court, viz., the learned VI Additional Judge, Chennai in CA.No.297/2006 vide judgment dated 27.06.2007. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows:- [a] On 31.03.2004 at about 11.20 a.m. in Jawaharlal Nehru 100 feet road, at the junction of Ambal Nagar, the petitioner drove the lorry bearing Registration No. TN 01 evidence 1467 in a rash and negligent manner from South to North and dashed against a pedestrian, viz., Thirumalai, without following the signal and endangering human safety. The said Thirumalai was coming from East to West and due to the dashing of the lorry, he fell down and the wheels of the lorry ran over his legs and thereby caused grievous injuries to his legs, right hand and head. Thereafter, he was admitted in a private hospital in K.K. Nagar and he died while he was taken to the Government General Hospital for further treatment. [b] The case was taken on file by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in CC.No.5480/2004 and on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P.1 to 8 were marked. Neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked on the side of the accused. The Trial Court, viz., learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, on consideration and appreciation of the evidence available on record, found the petitioner guilty u/s.304-A IPC and u/s.184 of Motor Vehicles Act and convicted and sentenced him for the above said offences as stated above in CC.No.5480/2004 by the judgment dated 17.10.2006. [c] The Appellate Court, viz., the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court in CA.No.297/2006 vide judgment dated 27.06.2007. [c] The Appellate Court, viz., the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court in CA.No.297/2006 vide judgment dated 27.06.2007. Being aggrieved against the said judgments, the present revision is before this Court. 3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the only eyewitness to the occurrence is P.W.1, a traffic constable and the other witnesses, viz., P.Ws.2 to 5, have spoken only about the subsequent events of the accidents. The occurrence has not been properly spoken to by P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 alone cannot substantiate the offence, especially when the constable was busy in controlling the traffic. The fact that the pedestrian/victim has come and got into the vehicle after the vehicle had crossed him, would have the only impact that the mistake was on the part of the pedestrian and not on the driver of the vehicle Hence, he would only contend that the award of punishment by the Courts below, viz., the Trial Court as affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court, is excessive and not correct. 4. Mr. C. Emaliyas, learned Government Advocate [Crl. Side] would mainly contend that P.W.1 is the Traffic Constable and he was managing the traffic at that point of time. The sketch [Ex.P.7] has been produced and a perusal of the same would make it clear that the road is a very big road and it is an inter-junction of four roads. The occurrence took place in the junction of the main road, viz., Jawaharlal Nehru 100 Feet Road and Ambal Nagar Main Road. According to P.W.1, in his chief examination, he has categorically stated that he was allowing the pedestrians to cross the road from East to West and at that time, the vehicle which was coming from South to North, was directed to be stopped by him. But, the driver/revision petitioner did not heed to the direction of P.W..1. He did not stop the vehicle and he proceeded further in a rash and negligent manner. In that process, he dashed against the pedestrians who were already crossing the road from East to West. Therefore, the lorry which has been driven in a rash and negligent manner is the cause for the accident. Further, learned Government Advocate [Crl. He did not stop the vehicle and he proceeded further in a rash and negligent manner. In that process, he dashed against the pedestrians who were already crossing the road from East to West. Therefore, the lorry which has been driven in a rash and negligent manner is the cause for the accident. Further, learned Government Advocate [Crl. Side] would also contend that the vehicle did not stop immediately at the impact spot which is shown in Ex.P.7 [sketch] and it was further driven up to 20 feet, i.e., beyond 5 meters and stopped. This clinching aspect clearly proves beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. It is submitted that both the Courts below have correctly come to the conclusion that the driver of the vehicle is responsible and liable and only minimum punishment of six months has been awarded and there is no lacuna in the evidence of P.W.1. Hence, he would only contend that the revision is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard both parties and perused the records. By mutual consent, the criminal revision is taken up for final disposal. 6. The only point which has been raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that except P.W.1, there is no other evidence or independent witness to prove the factum of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner/accused. The evidence of P.W.1, a traffic constable who was controlling the traffic at that point of time reads as follows:- "Tamil” From the evidence of P.W.1, it is very clear that the driver/revision petitioner has violated the traffic constable's [P.W.1] signal to stop the vehicle. He was driving the vehicle in such a rash and negligent manner that he has crossed the signal and caused the accident and the victim was totally injured and he succumbed to the injuries. Of course, P.Ws.2 to 5 stated that they saw the accident; but then they have helped P.W.1 in taking the victim to the hospital. P.W.2 states that he has seen the accident. Even if this Court accepts that contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that P.W.2 has not witnessed the occurrence, the evidence of P.W.1 is clear and cogent and in the cross-examination also there is not much discrepancies. P.W.2 is a Auto driver and his evidence also corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. Even if this Court accepts that contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that P.W.2 has not witnessed the occurrence, the evidence of P.W.1 is clear and cogent and in the cross-examination also there is not much discrepancies. P.W.2 is a Auto driver and his evidence also corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. He has stated that the lorry was driven in spite of the instructions of P.W.1-traffic constable to stop. But, the revision petitioner would only contend that P.W.2 has stated in his evidence in the chief examination that he has not seen the driver of the vehicle. But the accident as narrated by P.W.1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2. 7. Similarly, P.W.3 would also state that ".......Tamil". Therefore, P.W.3 has also clearly stated about the occurrence. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that except P.W.1, there is no other evidence to speak about the occurrence, is belied. Further, a perusal of Ex.P.7-sketch would make it clear that from the impact point in the main road, the vehicle has been driven up to 20 feet further and it did not stop. Therefore, the vehicle should have been driven in a rash and negligent manner, which is evident from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. In those circumstances, both the Courts below are right in holding that the driver of the vehicle was responsible for the accident and the Trial Court has awarded only a minimum sentence of six months. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in the judgments of the Courts below. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court is hereby sustained. 9. The Trial Court is directed to issue warrant against the revision petitioner/accused and secure the presence of the accused in prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The sentence already undergone shall be given set off u/s.428 Cr. P.C.