ORDER The short facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- The respondent police had registered a criminal case in Crime No.949 of 2004 for the offence under Section 279 and 304 (A) of IPC against the revision petitioner herein / accused stating that the accused had driven the vehicle viz., Recovery Crane bearing registration No.TN-09-Y-8089 attached with the crane bearing registration No.TN-07-V-1462, on the Palamaneri Main Road and dashed against one Kathirvelu who was a pedestrian and walking on the same road in front of the said Recovery Crane. As a result, the pedestrian had succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Hence, the case has been registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. After investigation, a charge sheet has been filed. The said case was arrayed as C.C.No.395 of 2004, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham. Copy of the charge sheet has been served on the accused and on being questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty, hence the prosecution case has been proceeded with. 2. On the side of the prosecution, ten witnesses have been examined and eight documents were marked, no material evidence has been produced. On the side of the defence, no evidence, no document and no material object has been produced. 3. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that on 24.10.2004, at about 11.30 a.m., when he and his sister were walking along with the deceased Kathirvelu on the Palamaneri mud road portion, the recovery Crane Vehicle coming behind them had dashed against Kathirvelu and the said vehicle had been stopped only after proceeding for some distance. The injured kathirvelu had expired on the spot. P.W.1 further stated that the accident had been noticed by the wife of the deceased and his sister who came on the same road after meeting a fortune-teller. P.W.4 also noticed the said accident. Supporting his evidence, he had marked the above mentioned documents. P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 had adduced evidence on the same line of P.W.1. 4. P.W.6-doctor had adduced evidence that he had conducted a postmortem on 24.10.2004 at about 2.25 p.m., on the request of P.W.10, who is Inspector of Police, attached to the Gudiyatham Taluk Police Station. The doctor further adduced evidence that the deceased had sustained serious injuries in both of his thighs and abdomen, as a result, he expired due to shock and haemorrhage. The doctor further adduced evidence that the deceased had sustained serious injuries in both of his thighs and abdomen, as a result, he expired due to shock and haemorrhage. P.W.10 had adduced evidence that he had conducted an enquiry at the occurrence place in the presence of witnesses and collected observation mahazar and obtained signature from P.W.7. P.W.8, Motor Vehicle Inspector had adduced evidence that he had conducted an inspection on the offending vehicle and had given a report stating that the vehicle is in a fit condition to operate on the public road and as such, the accident had not been caused due to any mechanism failure of the vehicle. P.W.5 and P.W.7 had turned hostile. 5. On considering the evidence of witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by the prosecution, viz., complaint, postmortem report, observation mahazar signed by P.W.7, Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, F.I.R., observation mahazar, rough sketch and postmortem report and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side, the learned Magistrate held that the accused had committed the said accident in a rash and negligent manner and that in the result, the pedestrian had expired. Therefore, the learned Judge on holding that the prosecution case has been proved beyond doubt, sentenced the accused to undergo one year simple imprisonment under Section 304(A) of IPC. 6. Against the said conviction and sentence, the accused has filed an appeal in C.A.No.175 of 2006 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore. The learned judge after hearing the arguments of learned counsels on either side and on perusing the trial Court judgment, dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the trial Court conviction. The learned judge on observing that both P.W.2 and P.W.3 had witnessed the accident and that both of them had walked along with the deceased on the same road, held the accused guilty of offence and confirmed the order of the trial Court. 7. Against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, the above revision has been filed. 8. The highly competent counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the prosecution witnesses P.W.5 and P.W.7 had turned hostile and they are going against their initial statements. P.W.7 had denied that he had signed the observation mahazar as witness. Therefore, there is a lacuna in the judgments of the Courts below. 8. The highly competent counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the prosecution witnesses P.W.5 and P.W.7 had turned hostile and they are going against their initial statements. P.W.7 had denied that he had signed the observation mahazar as witness. Therefore, there is a lacuna in the judgments of the Courts below. As such, the prosecution case had not been proved beyond doubt. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the recovery crane bearing registration No.TN-09-Y-8089 was towing a crane bearing registration No.TN-07-V-1462. It was further alleged that the petitioner was driving the crane van which was towed by the recovery and that he had dashed against the pedestrian, who later died, but the evidence of the witnessed who deposed in support of the prosecution had alleged that the accident was caused by the person who drove the recovery van, as such, the evidence of P.W.1 is contrary to the evidence of the witnesses and not crystal clear. The petitioner is aged about 36 years and he had not committed any accident so far in his service. The petitioner is the only breadwinner of the family consisting of aged parents, wife and minor children. Actually, the pedestrian was walking in the middle of the road and as such, the deceased had invited the said accident due to his negligence. Further, the learned Magistrate had acquitted the accused under Section 279 of IPC, hence it is evident that the accused had not driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, the sentence imposed on the accused under Section 304(A) of IPC is not sustainable under law, hence, the very competent counsel entreats the court to allow the revision. 9. The highly competent counsel, Mr.Mohammed Riyaz vehemently argued that the prosecution had proved the case against the accused. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were eyewitness who were walking along with the deceased on the Palamaneri Main Road, on their left side i.e., on the mud portion of the road and at that point of time, the driver of the Recovery Crane vehicle had dashed against the deceased due to his rash and negligent driving. P.W.10, the Inspector of had registered a F.I.R. and conducted a spot inquiry in the presence of witnesses and prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch and proved the case pertaining to the place of the occurrence. P.W.10, the Inspector of had registered a F.I.R. and conducted a spot inquiry in the presence of witnesses and prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch and proved the case pertaining to the place of the occurrence. P.W.6, the doctor had adduced evidence that the deceased Sakthivel had sustained grievous injuries on both his thighs and abdomen and as such due to shock and haemorrhage, he had succumbed to his injuries. Therefore, the medical evidence is also crystal clear. As such, there is no lacuna in the judgment for convicting the accused. P.W.8, Motor Vehicle Inspector had conducted an inspection on the offending vehicle and certified that the vehicle was in fit position to be operated on the public road and there was no mechanical failure. Hence, the very competent counsel prays to dismiss the revision. 10. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the very competent counsels on either side and on perusing the judgments of the Courts below, this court does not find any shortcomings in the decisions arrived at pertaining to the guilt of the accused under Section 304 (A) of IPC. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused so far had not committed any accident in his past several years service. Besides he is a middle aged man and the breadwinner for his entire family. Considering this aspect, this Court reduces the sentence from one year simple imprisonment to three months simple imprisonment, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. 11. In the result, the above revision is partly allowed. Consequently, the judgment and conviction passed in C.A.No.175 of 2006, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore, dated 30.03.2007, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.395 of 2004, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham, dated 20.09.2006 is modified. Accordingly ordered.