JUDGMENT 1. The revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. is invoked against the judgment and order dated 07/08/2012 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Panaji, Goa by which order, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the I.P.C. was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. The proceedings arise out of the chargesheet filed in C.R. No.4/2010 dated 07/01/2010 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein on 07/01/2010 at about 7.45 a.m. at Ghadiwada Surla Pale, Bicholim, Goa drove his school bus bearing no.GA-04-T-0592 in a rash and negligent manner while proceeding from Ghadiwada Surla to Kothambi Tagor High School. It is further the case of the prosecution that when the accused reached at Ghadiwada Surla while proceeding to Kothambi Tagor High School, he dashed against six boundary cement poles and also dashed against the tipper truck bearing no.GA-04-T-4896 which was coming from opposite direction i.e. Vagus to Kothambi Surla thereby causing simple injuries to 12 students and grievous injuries to one student namely Varun Gurudas Ghadi, aged about 12 years and who was travelling in the school bus driven by the accused. In the said case, the accused was served with a copy of the chargesheet along with the documents as required by Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein the accused has stated that two trucks coming from Kothambi side went in a fast speed and one truck dashed against him and in the process, his bus went towards left side and hit the roadside poles and resultantly, the bus went out of balance and in view thereof, hit the oncoming truck against its roof top and resultantly, the glass got cracked and since the truck came towards the bus, he had no chance to take the bus on the side. 3. The substance of the accusation was explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and hence, was directed to face trial. 4. 3. The substance of the accusation was explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and hence, was directed to face trial. 4. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses amongst whom is PW1, who is the Panch witness, PW2, who is the truck driver, PW4-Assistant Director of Transport, PW3, PW5 to PW8 are the students and father of one of the students and PW9 is the Police Constable, who has produced the hurt certificates. The Trial Court i.e. the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 'C' Court, Bicholim considered the said evidence, which has come on record. The Trial Court, as can be seen, has relied upon the scene of offence panchanama and relying upon the said scene of offence panchanama, observed that the said sketch gives the first impression about the occurrence of the accident. The Trial Court further went on to observe that the sketch shows negligence on the part of the bus driver. The Trial Court observed that though the scene of offence panchanama is not a substantive piece of evidence, its value is corroborative in nature and, thereafter, proceeded to evaluate the evidence, which was on record. The Trial Court insofar as the evidence of PW5 to PW8 is concerned, has made observations in respect of the said evidence, which indicate that the Trial Court did not deem it appropriate to rely upon the said evidence. However, the Trial Court, after considering the version of the prosecution witnesses and also the statement of the accused himself and considering the evidence of PW4-Girish Dalvi, which was to the effect that if the bus dashed the cement poles and thereafter against the oncoming truck, after observing that even otherwise the nature of the said damages and the point of impact of the vehicle at which they are caused clearly establishes the case of the prosecution, went on to hold that the above material on record, had proved the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused was driving the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and in the process of driving his bus in a rash and negligent manner, the accused first gave dash to the roadside poles and thereafter, gave dash to the oncoming truck. The Trial Court, therefore, held that the charge under Section 279 of the I.P.C. of rash and negligent driving against the accused was proved. The Trial Court, therefore, held that the charge under Section 279 of the I.P.C. of rash and negligent driving against the accused was proved. In view of the fact that the offence under Section 279 of the I.P.C. was proved, the offences under Sections 337 and 338 of the I.P.C. which can only be said to be consequential to the offence of rash and negligent driving, were accordingly held to be proved by the Trial Court. The Trial Court, accordingly, convicted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the I.P.C. and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for the two months insofar as the offence under Section 279 of the I.P.C. is concerned, sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.500/-insofar as the offence under Section 337 of the I.P.C. is concerned and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1000/-insofar as the offence under Section 338 of the I.P.C. is concerned. 5. Against his conviction, the accused carried the matter in Appeal by filing Criminal Appeal No.63/2011. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the Appeal by the impugned judgment and order dated 07/08/2012 and thereby confirmed the conviction of the accused under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the I.P.C. Insofar as the evidence, which was adduced on behalf of the prosecution is concerned, for the reasons mentioned in its order, the Lower Appellate Court held that the charge was proved against the accused on the ground that after the dash to the poles, which the accused has admitted, he could not stop the bus and this speaks volumes about the speed at which the accused was driving. This, according to the Lower Appellate Court, amounted to rash and negligent driving on the road such as the present one which is stated to be one on which mining trucks ply at a fast speed. The Lower Appellate Court held that the evidence of PW5, PW6 and PW8 clearly establishes that the accused was driving in a fast speed and had dashed against the poles on the side of the road and the said fact, according to the Lower Appellate Court, clearly suggests that the accused could not control the bus due to the fast speed at which he was driving. The Lower Appellate Court held that the defence taken by the accused that he had dashed the poles due to the fast speed of the oncoming truck, cannot be accepted, as being an afterthought. Both the Courts below, therefore, have placed reliance on the scene of offence panchanama and in corroboration thereof, sought to rely upon the evidence, which was adduced on behalf of the prosecution in support of the charge of rash and negligent driving under Section 279 of the I.P.C. 6. The principal contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove the charge of rash and negligent driving. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Bhobe that the scene of offence panchanama is itself defective which does not show the curve, which the school bus driven by the accused had traversed. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that brake marks are appearing in the said sketch and there is no whisper by way of evidence to show as to whose brake marks they were. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and, therefore, the finding recorded by both the Courts below that the charge under Section 279 of the I.P.C. is proved, is perverse. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor Shri Rivonkar sought to justify the conviction of the accused. However, when confronted with the fact that the scene of offence panchanama did not refer to the curve to the road as also the fact that there is no evidence as regards the brake marks, which have been shown in the sketch, the learned Public Prosecutor could not justify the orders with any deal of conviction. 8. Since it is the case of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is absolutely no evidence on record to justify the finding of rash and negligent driving, it would be in the said context relevant to consider the evidence on record. 9. Insofar as the panch witness i.e. PW1 is concerned, it has come in his evidence that there is sharp turn to the road in front of the said truck and the road is straight on the spot. 9. Insofar as the panch witness i.e. PW1 is concerned, it has come in his evidence that there is sharp turn to the road in front of the said truck and the road is straight on the spot. It has further come in his evidence that the said sharp curve is at a distance of about 20 metres away from the accident spot. Insofar as PW2 i.e. the truck driver is concerned, he has stated that when he reached at Surla Ghadiwada, one bus coming from opposite direction gave dash to the electricity pole on the side of the road and after giving a dash to the said pole, the bus dashed against his truck and the bus went outside the tar road towards left side of the bus. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the said road is usually used for transport of iron ore and the trucks proceed on the said road in a fast speed in order to increase the number of trips. He has further stated in his cross-examination that there is a left turn to the said road which is ahead of the accident spot while proceeding from Vagus to Surla and it is not a sharp turn. He has further stated that the vehicles passing from other side of the turn are not visible from the other side of the turn. PW3- Varun Ghadi, who is a student, has stated that he could not see the actual occurrence of the accident. However, he has deposed that on account of the said accident, he suffered injury. PW5-Jyoti Chari is also a student, who has deposed in cross-examination that she came to know about the accident after she heard the noise of the dash. PW6-Sachin Patyekar, who is also a student, has deposed that the bus was in a fast speed and had given dash to the pole situated on the left side of the road while proceeding to Kothambi and the said bus turned turtle and that he does not know what happened thereafter and he suffered injuries to his hands on account of glass pieces and there were other school going children in the said bus. He has further stated that he travelled by the said bus daily to go to school. He has further stated that he travelled by the said bus daily to go to school. PW7 is the parent of one of the students and he has stated that he received information about the accident from his wife. Insofar as PW8- Ashish Ghadi, who is also a student is concerned, he has deposed that the accident took place on the curve itself. The said witness has also admitted that he has not seen the actual occurrence of the accident. 10. Reading of the aforesaid evidence discloses that it is the common evidence of the witnesses that the said road is used by the trucks transporting mined ore and the trucks are driven at a fast speed. It has come in the evidence of the students as well as PW7 that they have been commuting by the said bus to the school on daily basis and that they have been so doing for some length of time. As indicated above, insofar as PW5 to PW8 are concerned, the Trial Court has virtually preferred not to take into consideration the evidence of the said witnesses. Insofar as PW5 is concerned, her evidence is to the effect that she came to know about the accident upon hearing the dash. She has admitted that she has not seen the actual occurrence of the accident as there were students in front of her. Insofar as PW6 is concerned though he has stated that the bus was in a fast speed and it gave dash to the poles situated on the left side, he has also stated that the bus turned turtle which is not the case of the prosecution or not the evidence of any of the witnesses. Insofar as the evidence of PW7 is concerned, the Trial Court has rejected the said evidence on the ground that it being hearsay as PW7 has admitted that he was deposing on the basis of the information given by his wife. Insofar as PW8 is concerned, the Trial Court has observed that the said witness does not keep correct knowledge of the occurrence of the accident. Insofar as PW8 is concerned, the Trial Court has observed that the said witness does not keep correct knowledge of the occurrence of the accident. Though the evidence of PW5 to PW8, as indicated above, was not relied upon by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court, as can be seen, has recorded a finding that the evidence of PW5, PW6 and PW8 clearly establishes that the accused was driving in a fast speed and had dashed against the poles on the side of the road. Hence, the evidence, which was not found worthy of reliance by the Trial Court, has been accepted by the Lower Appellate Court. The question is whether the said evidence is enough to prove the charge of rash and negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt. Now coming to the scene of offence panchanama, both the Courts below have relied upon the same and in corroboration thereof, had relied upon the evidence of the witnesses to record a finding that the charge against the accused of rash and negligent driving has been proved. Insofar as the scene of offence panchanama is concerned, the sketch drawn is defective inasmuch as the curve on the road which is admittedly existing 20 metres from the truck, has not been shown. Since it is a case of the accused as appearing in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that after coming down on the curve, the truck passed him in a fast speed and went away, as a result of which he had to take the bus on the left side and as a consequence thereof, the bus dashed against the poles and went out of the control and dashed against the truck in question. The depiction of the curve in the said scene of offence panchanama was, therefore, very vital for proper appreciation of the fact that as to how the accident might have occurred. It is also pertinent to note that though the brake marks have been shown in front of the truck in the said sketch, there is absolutely no explanation in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as to how the brake marks have occurred. It was for the prosecution to explain the said brake marks. Unfortunately, no evidence has been adduced in that regard. It was for the prosecution to explain the said brake marks. Unfortunately, no evidence has been adduced in that regard. In my view, therefore, the sketch being defective in the absence of the curve being shown in it, the same could not have been relied upon by the Courts below to arrive at a finding as to how the accident might have occurred. The evidence on record which has already been dealt with hereinabove, can hardly be said to corroborate the sketch as to the manner in which the accident might have occurred. In fact, at the cost of repetition, it is required to be stated that the Trial Court has virtually refused to take into consideration the evidence of PW5 to PW8. 11. Both the Courts below have also recorded a finding that in the absence of the case made out in the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. put to the truck driver, the said statement is an afterthought and cannot be relied upon. In the said context, it is required to be noted that PW2, who is the truck driver has, in turn, confirmed what the accused had stated in the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. as regards the manner in which the accident has occurred. In view thereof, there was no necessity for putting the said case to the PW2 and, therefore, both the Courts below have wrongly held that the said statement of the accused could not be relied upon even for the purpose of corroboration. In my view, both the Courts below have erred in convicting the accused under Section 279 of the I.P.C. as well as Sections 337 and 338 of the I.P.C. which conviction can only be said to be consequential, in the absence of any cogent evidence on record. In my view, therefore, the exercise of the revisionary jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case is warranted. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Lower Appellate Court dated 07/08/2012 is quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the conviction of the accused under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the I.P.C. is set aside. The bail bonds would stand cancelled and the accused shall be set at liberty.