JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. The present revision is against the judgment of conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (2nd Court) Wardha in Summary Criminal Case No. 4559/2009. The said judgment was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Wardha vide Criminal Appeal No. 3/2013. The appeal came to be dismissed on 12.8.2013, by confirming the judgment of conviction. Hence, the present revision. 2. The case of the prosecution against the applicant/accused, in short, on the day of incident i.e. on 4.9.2011, accused was driving his S.T. Bus rashly and negligently and gave dash to the deceased. Deceased died on the spot. On the report of Dandansingh (P.W.1) crime was registered against the applicant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer reached to the spot of incident and prepared the spot panchanama and recorded the statements of witnesses. After investigation, filed the charge-sheet before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wardha. Particulars were framed and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined in all six witnesses. After recording the statement of accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted the accused/applicant as stated above. 3. Heard Shri H.D. Dangare, learned counsel for the applicant/accused. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that evidence of P.W.1 itself not relied by the trial Court. The evidence of P.W.2 shows that the accused was not driving his S.T. Bus rashly and negligently. The learned counsel has pointed out the evidence of P.W.2 and submitted that as per evidence P.W.2 Bus started abruptly. The learned counsel has submitted that his evidence does not show that accused was driving his S.T. Bus rashly and negligently. He has pointed out the cross-examination and submitted that there are material omissions in his evidence. The learned counsel has submitted that the evidence of P.W.3 is not relied upon by the trial Court. P.W.3 has not witnessed the incident personally. The learned counsel has pointed out the spot panchanama and submitted that there was no any break mark, which suggests that S.T. Bus was not in high speed. 5. Heard learned APP Shri H.R. Dhumale for the Nonapplicant/State. He has strongly supported the impugned judgment. 6. P.W.3 has not witnessed the incident personally. The learned counsel has pointed out the spot panchanama and submitted that there was no any break mark, which suggests that S.T. Bus was not in high speed. 5. Heard learned APP Shri H.R. Dhumale for the Nonapplicant/State. He has strongly supported the impugned judgment. 6. From reading of the judgment of the trial Court, it is clear that trial Court has recorded it's finding in Para-9 that Daddansingh (P.W.1) was not present on the spot of incident. The trial Court has recorded it's finding in Para-10 that Madhukar (P.W.3) did not personally witness the incident. Learned trial Court has relied on the evidence of P.W.2 and 5. 7. P.W.2 has stated in his evidence that at the time of incident hotels were situated both the sides of the road. At the time of incident, deceased was crossing the road from one hotel to other. S.T. Bus was standing on the road. The S.T. Bus was abruptly started, the deceased was baffled due to headlights. Therefore, S.T. Bus run over his person. Thereafter, he informed to his uncle Daddansingh. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that those material facts which are stated in the examination-in-chief not stated in his police statement. 8. P.W. 5 in his examination-in-chief itself has admitted that his statement was not recorded by the police. In crossexamination, he has admitted that he did not go to the police for recording his statement. This witness (P.W.5) is resident of Arvi, Naka, Wardha. The hotel of the P.W.2 is also situated near Arvi Naka. Therefore, it was natural for P.W.2 to inform the investigating officer about the presence of P.W.5 without recording the statement of P.W.5 he came forward. Therefore, it appears that he is interested witness. The evidence of P.W.1 and 2 do not shows that he was present on the spot of incident. 9. The evidence of P.W.2 shows that accused was not driving his vehicle rashly or negligently. The evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W.3 not rightly relied upon by the trial Court. In this case P.W. 5 is the only witness. He has stated in his evidence that when he was going to purchase some articles in the market, he seen that one S.T. Bus was standing and one person was coming from opposite direction. The evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W.3 not rightly relied upon by the trial Court. In this case P.W. 5 is the only witness. He has stated in his evidence that when he was going to purchase some articles in the market, he seen that one S.T. Bus was standing and one person was coming from opposite direction. The said S.T. Bus dashed to the said person came in the front vehicle of the S.T. Bus, and therefore accident took place. The P.W.2 has stated that the bus was abruptly started and because of headlight, the deceased was baffled and therefore the accident took place. The evidence of P.W.5 is not reliable, because his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer. Moreover, he is resident of near the area where the hotel of the complainant situated. In such circumstances, he could point out the name of witness No.5 to the Investigation Officer. There is no such law that there must be statement recorded by Investigating Officer. The Court can record evidence of any witness, but reliability of the witness is to be seen by the Court. Spot panchanmaa itself shows that there was no break mark on the spot of incident. This itself shows that accused was not driving S.T. Bus rashly or negligently. The learned trial Court not considered the evidence P.W.2 properly. If the evidence of P.W.2 taken into consideration then it appears that the accused was not driving his vehicle rashly or negligently and therefore the judgment of the trial Court convicting the accused is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence the following order:- ORDER The impugned judgment in Summary Criminal Case No. 4559/2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Wardha dated 02.01.2013 and confirmed by Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Appeal No. 3/2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. Bail bond stand cancel. Fine amount, if paid be refunded to the accused.