Judgment 1. This revision is preferred against two concurrent judgments of the Courts below convicting the petitioner of an offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d 2 months R.I. 2. The prosecution case was that at about 08.00 p.m. on 02.03.2004 the accused drove a container lorry bearing registration No.KL-07-L-2010 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a motorcycle ridden by the deceased, owing to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. A case was registered in Crime No.147 of 2004 for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC on the file of the respondent. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences under sections 279 and 304-A IPC and the same was taken on file by learned District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Perundhurai, in C.C.No.120 of 2004. 3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined four witnesses, marked eight exhibits. No material objects were marked. None were examined on behalf of the defence and no exhibits were marked. 4. On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court rendered a finding of conviction and sentenced the petitioner/accused to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default two months rigorous imprisonment. Against such finding, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.150 of 2008 before learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court I, Erode and the same was dismissed under judgment dated 24.09.2008. There against, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the alleged eye witnesses PWs.1 and 2 could not have witnessed the occurrence inasmuch as both of them, in keeping with the First Information Report, deposed that the container lorry had been driven away from the scene of occurrence. However, the evidence of PW-4, Investigation Officer, as also the topo sketch, Ex.P4, indicated otherwise. Learned counsel submits that the offending vehicle was a larger container lorry of 16 wheels which would not be driven at high speed. Submitting that PW-1, in chief, initially deposed of the container lorry driven by the petitioner/accused being in front of the motorcycle ridden by the deceased, learned counsel contends that non-examination of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, as a witness, despite his having been examined by PW-4, Investigation Officer, deprives the petitioner opportunity to prove his defence. Submitting that PW-1, in chief, initially deposed of the container lorry driven by the petitioner/accused being in front of the motorcycle ridden by the deceased, learned counsel contends that non-examination of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, as a witness, despite his having been examined by PW-4, Investigation Officer, deprives the petitioner opportunity to prove his defence. Similar is the contention also regards non-examination of the Doctor, who conducted postmortem. Learned counsel further submits that as against the occurrence on 02.03.2004, the petitioner has been arrested on 06.03.2004 as per the evidence of PW-4. The above, according to the learned counsel, would be grounds sufficient to suspect the prosecution case and to acquit the accused. 6. Heard learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) on the above submissions. 7. The very presence of PWs.1 and 2 become suspect in the light of their deposition that the petitioner/accused made a get away after the accident when the evidence of PW-4 is to the contrary and the presence of the vehicle at the scene is shown in the topo sketch. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner/accused that the vehicle driven by the petitioner, a large container lorry of 16 wheels, could not have been driven at much speed, calls for consideration as it is admitted by PW-4, Investigation Officer, that the place of occurrence was a congested area. The topo sketch shows the same to be immediately adjacent to an intersection. The possibility of the defence version viz., that in overtaking the large container lorry the motorcyclist/deceased had hit the front of the container lorry and gone under resulting in his death, easily cannot be brushed aside, particularly, where the prosecution has not thought it fit to examine the Motor Vehicle Inspector nor the Doctor, who conducted postmortem. In the prosecution failing to do so, the accused has been deprived of an opportunity to prove his case. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Revision shall stand allowed. The judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court I, Erode, passed in C.A.No.150 of 2008 on 24.09.2008, confirming the judgment of learned District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Perundhurai, passed in C.C.No.120 of 2004 on 16.04.2008 shall stand set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of all charges. Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to him.