Judgment :- 1. The respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.291 of 2002 against the revision petitioner herein for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of I.P.C. stating that the accused had driven the bus bearing Registration No.TN-55-8040 on the Vaniyambadi to Alangayam Main Road on 02.10.2002 at about 9.00 p.m. and at that point of time the accused had driven the bus in a negligent manner and at high speed and dashed against the motorcyclist, bearing Registration No.TN-23-G-2182, as a result the rider of the motorcycle had sustained simple injuries while the pillion rider Srinivasan had succumbed to his injuries. Hence, the above said case is levelled against the accused. The respondent police had conducted investigation and filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thirupathur. The said case numbered as C.C.No.12 of 2003. On the side of the prosecution, 9 witnesses have been examined and 7 documents were marked, no material objects. On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no exhibits was marked and no material objects. 2. PW 2, the rider of the motorcycle had adduced evidence stating that he was riding the bike bearing Registration No.TN-23-G-2182 on the Vaniyambadi to Alangayam Main Road on 02.10.2002 at about 9.00 p.m. The deceased Srinivasan was the pillion rider on the motorcycle. The accused had driven the bus in TN-55-8040 in a negligent manner and at high speed on the same direction and dashed against them. The pillion rider was his brother. While the deceased was taken to the C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore, wherein it was declared that he had expired on the way. PW1 had in formed at the Police Station and he took both the victimized to the hospital. PW3, Sivakumar is the brother of the deceased, who was present at the time of the postmortem. PW 4-Doctor had adduced evidence stating that the pillion rider i.e. PW2 had sustained simple injuries. PW 5-Dr.Ambiga Shanmugam had adduced evidence that she conducted postmortem and submitted the postmortem report. PW 6-Sub-Inspector of Police conducted an enquiry and prepared a rough sketch which has been marked as Exhibit-P6. PW7-Motor Vehicle Inspector had conducted an inspection of the offending bus and adduced evidence stating that the accident had not happened due to mechanism failure. PW 8 had also adduced evidence on the same line of PW1. PW 6-Sub-Inspector of Police conducted an enquiry and prepared a rough sketch which has been marked as Exhibit-P6. PW7-Motor Vehicle Inspector had conducted an inspection of the offending bus and adduced evidence stating that the accident had not happened due to mechanism failure. PW 8 had also adduced evidence on the same line of PW1. PW 9-Inspector of Police, had also adduced evidence that PW 2 had ridden the motorcycle on his extreme left side but due to rash and negligent driving of the accused, the accident had been invited. 3. In order to prove the prosecution case, the below mentioned exhibits were marked namely: Complaint, Wound Certificate, Postmortem certificate, F.I.R., Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, Rough sketch and Inquest report. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the exhibits marked by the prosecution and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on either side, the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the accused had committed the said accident, in a rash and negligent manner and the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, the accused was found guilty under Section 304(A) I.P.C., convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 337 of I.P.C., since the offence under Sections 304(A) and 337 of I.P.C. includes the offence envisaged under Section 279 of I.P.C. no separate sentence imposed on the accused. 4. Against the said conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate, the accused has filed the above appeal in C.A.No.118 of 2004 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore. The learned Judge after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned judgment of the trial Court, the learned Judge observed that the accused had driven the bus in a negligent manner and at high speed and dashed against the motorcyclist, as such the accused caused simple injuries to the rider of the motorcyclist and caused fatal injuries to the pillion rider of the motorcyclist and the same was proved beyond doubt. Hence, the appeal is dismissed and trial Court judgment and conviction confirmed. 5. Hence, the appeal is dismissed and trial Court judgment and conviction confirmed. 5. Against the said dismissal of the appeal the revision has been filed. The highly competent counsel argued that the accused had driven the bus in a cautious manner after observing the traffic rules. While the accused had driven the bus on the Vaniyambadi Road, the rider of the motorcycle had suddenly applied brake, as a result, the accident was invited by the motorcyclist. The prosecution had not preferred any observation mahazar in the presence of the witnesses as such there is irregularities on the side of the prosecution. The postmortem was not conducted in the presence of Panchayadars. The rider of the motorcycle was not possessing valid driving licence, as such PW 2 rider of the motorcycle had committed negligence in the said accident case. No eyewitness was examined. PW 2 and PW 3 are brothers of the deceased therefore, they are interested witnesses. The very competent counsel further contended that the driver so far had not committed any accident in his service of 7 years, further he was possessing valid driving licence to operate heavy duty vehicles and he was aged about 40 years and is the only breadwinner of his family consisting of aged parents, wife and children. 6. The highly competent counsel for the State argued that PW1 was the injured witness and who was travelling as a pillion rider on the same motorcycle. The rider of the motorcycle knowing that the offending bus was coming behind him, therefore, he turned the motorcycle to his extreme left side and stationed the bike on the mud road, which reveals through a rough sketch being prepared by the competent officer and marked as exhibit P6. PW 1 and PW 8 are both independent eyewitnesses. PW 1 took the rider and pillion rider to the C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore, after the accident and lodged a complaint before the respondent police. The postmortem was conducted in the presence of PW 8. The Doctor had opined that the deceased had sustained grievous fatal injuries on the road accident. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked after serving a charge sheet and on questioning the charges. Therefore, the prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. 7. The Doctor had opined that the deceased had sustained grievous fatal injuries on the road accident. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked after serving a charge sheet and on questioning the charges. Therefore, the prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. 7. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned judgments of the Court below, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusion arrived at by the guilt of the accused. This Court's further view that PW2 is the injured witness and he also sustained injuries in the said accident, the same is confirmed through complaint, F.I.R. and Wound Certificate. Further, PW1 who took the victims to the hospital and the same evidence elicited from the witnesses. However, the learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused is a middle aged man and the only breadwinner of his family cousinship comprising of aged parents, wife and children, hence this Court accepts this contention and reduces the sentence from 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment to 2 months Rigorous Imprisonment, which had been awarded under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. The fine amount remains unaltered. The 2 months Rigorous Imprisonment for enforcement after deducting an earlier undergone period of the accused. 8. In the result, the above revision is partly allowed. Consequently, the judgment and conviction passed in C.A.No.118 of 2004 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore dated 29.07.2005, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.12 of 2003, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirupathur, dated 26.07.2004, is modified. There is no order as to costs.