Judgment :- 1. The respondent police has registered a criminal case in Crime No.85 of 2001, against the revision petitioner herein / accused for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. stating that the accused had driven the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-43-1929, in a rash and negligent manner, at a high speed and dashed against one Chinnan, a pedestrian, who was proceeding from Palladam towards Chettipalayam on 18.03.2001, at about 2.15 p.m. 2. The respondent police conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet before the trial Court and the criminal case has been arrayed as C.C.No.149 of 2002. After serving charge sheet on the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty on questioning and hence the case was proceeded with. On the side of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were examined and 9 documents were marked and no material objects were marked. On the side of the accused, no witness was examined and no document was marked. PW 1, had adduced evidence that about 2 years ago, at about 4.00 p.m., when he had seen the deceased walking from Palladam towards Chettipalayam on the left side of the road and at that point of time, the accused had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed it against the (deceased), who was his father. Immediately, he had rushed to the occurrence place, wherein his father had fallen and found that he had sustained grievous injuries. PW 2 had also adduced evidence which is on similar lines to that of evidence of PW 1. He further stated that the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, wherein he was declared dead. 3. PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 had also spoken on the same lines of PW 1 regarding manner of accident. PW 6 and PW7 have tuned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. PW8, Motor Vehicle Inspector had adduced evidence that he is attached to the Regional Transport Office, Tiruppur and that on the request of Inspector of Police, Ramanaickenpalayam, he had conducted inspection of the vehicle and had certified that the accident had not happened due to any mechanism failure. PW 9, Dr.Jayanthi had adduced evidence that on the request of Inspector of Police, Ramanaickenpalayam, she had conducted postmortem and she had opined that the death was caused due to grievous injuries sustained in the road accident. PW 9, Dr.Jayanthi had adduced evidence that on the request of Inspector of Police, Ramanaickenpalayam, she had conducted postmortem and she had opined that the death was caused due to grievous injuries sustained in the road accident. PW 10, had adduced evidence that on 18.10.2001, when he was at the police station, Ramanaickenpalayam, as Station House Officer, PW 1 had appeared before him and lodged a complaint regarding the said accident. PW11, had adduced evidence that the Criminal case in Crime No.85 of 2001, had been investigated by him after inspecting the occurrence place and that he had prepared the observation mahazar and rough sketch on 18.03.2001 at about 21.30 hours. He deposed that he went to the hospital and conducted an inquiry in the presence of Panchayatdars as witnesses. He deposed that on 19.03.2001, the accused himself surrendered before the police station and he was released on bail and the offending vehicle was seized and sent for Inspection to the Motor Vehicle Inspector. He deposed that after receiving Motor Vehicle Inspector's report and postmortem report, the case has been proceeded with. 4. PW9, Doctor had adduced evidence that the deceased had sustained many injuries on his chest, forehead, hand, lower jaw, fracture of bone in lower jaw and head injuries. She deposed that the nature of injuries sustained by him led to his death. She further opined that the deceased might have died in a road accident. 5. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the accused had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Therefore, the learned Magistrate held the accused guilty of offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. The learned Magistrate imposed a fine of a sum of Rs.500/-, in default, he had to undergo 1 month Simple Imprisonment. Further, the learned Magistrate sentenced the accused to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed a fine of a sum of Rs.3,500/- in default, he had to undergo 1 month Simple Imprisonment. 6. Against the said conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused had filed an appeal in C.A.No.494 of 2004, before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. 6. Against the said conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused had filed an appeal in C.A.No.494 of 2004, before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The learned Judge, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent and on perusing the trial Court judgment and after framing 3 issues, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial Court's order. The learned Judge further opined that he did not find any mitigating circumstances placed by the defence sought for reducing the sentence passed by the trial Court against the accused for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. Therefore, the learned Judge held the accused guilty of offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. The learned Judge further observed that the manner of accident caused by the accused himself revealed that the accused failed to apply proper and due case care while he was driving the lorry behind the pedestrian, in the busy evening time. The learned Judge further observed that the element of negligence lies on the part of the accused in the said accident. 7. Against the said dismissal of the appeal, the revision has been filed before this Court. The competent counsel for the accused contended PW1 to PW5 are not eyewitnesses and they are relatives of the deceased. PW 1 had stated that he had informed to the station officer orally but the prosecution had stated that PW1 had lodged a written complaint. PW6 and PW 7, who are independent witnesses had turned hostile. As per prosecution case, the accident had taken place on 18.03.2001 but the Motor Vehicle Inspector had conducted enquiry on 23.03.2001, after a few days. As such, there is a delay in filing the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. The very competent counsel further argued that the rough sketch and observation mahazar had been prepared after a delay of 9 hours and hence it is not a reliable document. The highly competent counsel further contended that the accused had driven the vehicle in a cautious manner after observing traffic rules and that the deceased had suddenly turned to his right and invited the accident. As such, the negligence is on the side of the deceased. The highly competent counsel further contended that the accused had driven the vehicle in a cautious manner after observing traffic rules and that the deceased had suddenly turned to his right and invited the accident. As such, the negligence is on the side of the deceased. The learned counsel further submits that the deceased's age was 70 years and he could not notice the lorry which was coming on the same road and he had negligently turned towards right and invited the accident. 8. The highly competent counsel for the State argued that when the deceased was proceeding on Palladam towards Chettipalayam road on 18.03.2001 at about 2.15 p.m., the accused had driven the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-43-1929 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, who was going ahead of it in the same direction. The same was witnessed by PW1 to PW4, who are the eyewitnesses, who were taking tea at a tea stall near the accident place. After the accident, the case has been registered against the accused under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. on the strength of PW 1's complaint. The accused had surrendered before the police station and had furnished driving licence particulars, vehicle particulars, owner particulars and Insurance particulars. After investigation, the accused had been released on bail. The very competent counsel further contended that the Inspector of Police had duly conducted enquiry and filed charge sheet against the accused. The charge sheet had listed 11 witnesses and 9 documents. Even though PW6 and PW7 turned hostile, the other witnesses are eyewitnesses and they have spoke about the manner of accident. The learned counsel further contended that the postmortem report reveals that the death had been caused due to grievous injuries which had been sustained in the Motor Vehicle Accident. Further, the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report clearly discloses that the offending vehicle was in a fit condition to be operated on the public road. Therefore, the prosecution had proved their case before the Courts below. As such, there is no lacuna in the judgment of the Courts below. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the appeal. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the age of the accused was 37 years and he is possessing a valid driving licence to operate heavy vehicles. As such, there is no lacuna in the judgment of the Courts below. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the appeal. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the age of the accused was 37 years and he is possessing a valid driving licence to operate heavy vehicles. So far, the accused had not committed any accident in his service. Further, he is the only breadwinner of his family, which consists of his aged parents, wife and children. Further, the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who was advanced in age and was unable to follow the traffic rules, when he was walking on the road. 10. On considering the facts of the prosecution case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned judgments and conviction at the Courts below, this Court does not find any shortcomings in the conclusions arrived at for punishing the accused under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. However, considering that the accused is aged about 37 years and also observing that he had not comitted any accident so far and also observing that he is the only breadwinner of the family, as was submitted by the learned counsel for the accused, this Court reduces the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment from 6 months to 3 months under Section 304(A) of I.P.C., as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. The fine amount imposed on the accused under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. remains unaltered. 11. In the result, the above revision is partly allowed with the above observations. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.494 of 2004, on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, dated 17.01.2006, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.149 of 2002, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, dated 28.10.2004, is modified. There is no order as to costs.