JUDGMENT : (Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397(1) and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, made in C.A.No.17 of 2014, dated 18.03.2015, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, made in C.C.No.39 of 2013, dated 25.03.2014.) 1. The convicted sole accused is the revision petitioner herein. 2. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to challenge the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.39 of 2014, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, dated 25.03.2014, and the same has been confirmed in C.A.No.17 of 2014, by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, dated 18.03.2015. 3(a). The respondent police has filed the charge sheet alleging that on 15.10.2009 at 06.00 a.m., when the deceased viz., Ramala was walking in the main road from Velankanni bus stand to Sebasthiyar Nagar, in the opposite side the revision petitioner/accused, who drove the Government bus bearing Registration No.TN 45/N 1002 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Ramala and the front wheel of the bus ran over the head of the deceased Ramala and caused her death on the spot itself. Hence, a criminal case in Crime No.365 of 2009, for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC was filed as against the revision petitioner/accused. 3(b). In order to prove the guilt of the revision petitioner/accused, on the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW13 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced. No material object produced on the side of prosecution. 3(c). On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has convicted the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved against the said order of conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred an appeal in CA.No.17 of 2014, before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam and by an order dated 18.03.2015, the learned Judge has confirmed order of the Trial Court as mentioned supra. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case. 4. Aggrieved against the said order of conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred an appeal in CA.No.17 of 2014, before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam and by an order dated 18.03.2015, the learned Judge has confirmed order of the Trial Court as mentioned supra. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case. 4. Heard both the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side), appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused would contend that as per the evidence of PW2/Kannan, PW1/Vallinathan was not present at the time of the accident and he came to the spot only after 45 minutes, on hearing the noise and therefore, both Courts below had committed an error in relying upon the evidence of PW1/Vallinathan. Further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused would challenge the evidential value of PW3/Chockalingam, who is the employer of the deceased, by stating that he is not the occurrence witness and in the charge sheet he was shown only as the person who has identified the body and not as an eye witnesses and hence, evidence of PW1 & PW6 cannot be considered, whereas both the Courts below wrongly convicted the revision petitioner/accused based upon those persons evidence. 6. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that PW1/Vallinathan is the husband of the deceased viz., Ramala and he has given the complaint, before the police, which was marked as Ex.P1; PW8 & PW9 are the attestors of Ex.P2/observation mahazar; based upon Ex.P1/complaint given by PW1 before PW11/Inspector of Police, the Inspector of Police had registered a case in Crime No. 365 of 2009 for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC; FIR was marked as Ex.P4 and PW13/Karinanidhi, has done investigation; PW4 is the conductor of bus, his evidence is to the effect that the revision petitioner/accused is the driver of the vehicle, who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident. The involvement of the bus and the accused as a driver on the duty, have been established by the prosecution. 7. On a perusal of the evidence of PW2 in his cross-examination he has stated that only on his information, PW1/husband of the deceased came to the spot and hence, PW1 is not the occurrence witnesses as projected by the prosecution. 7. On a perusal of the evidence of PW2 in his cross-examination he has stated that only on his information, PW1/husband of the deceased came to the spot and hence, PW1 is not the occurrence witnesses as projected by the prosecution. PW6/Jenithameri, who claims to be the house owner, has stated that the deceased Ramala, was working as a servant maid in her house and her evidence in the chief examination goes to show that as if she had witnessed the scene. No question has been put to her to challenge her alleged presence at the scene of Crime. A snap answer was obtained from her evidence that when she went and saw the dead body of Ramala, the body of the Ramala was like a sheet, as the front wheels of the bus ran over the body of the deceased. 8. I have perused the evidence of PW3/Chockalingam, wherein, he could deposed that on hearing the noise he turned and saw the accident and hence, I find that neither the evidence of PW1 nor PW3 nor PW6 advance the case of the prosecution. 9(a). I have perused the evidence of PW2, wherein, he could depose that: “TAMIL” 9(b).Further, PW2 could deposed as follows: “TAMIL” 9(c).The evidence of PW2 as extracted supra clearly demonstrated his presence in the scene of occurrence and he had also deposed the manner of the accident and further, his evidence both in chief and cross-examination is found to be clear and cogent. Whereas from the evidence of PW2, the manner of the accident, how the revision petitioner/accused has driven the vehicle in rash and negligent manner without noticing the persons were moving, whereby, the front wheel of the bus has ran over the body of the deceased and infact dragged her body to certain extent, thereby, entire body of the deceased was crashed and became as a sheet. 10. Hence, I find that the version of PW2/Kannan, as to his presence at the scene of occurrence, manner of driving of the accused on that day and the manner of the accident as extracted supra, goes to show that prosecution has proved the essential ingredients of rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner/accused on the fateful day. 11. As per Ex.P5/post-mortum certificate issued by PW12/Dr.K.N.Senthilkumar, the deceased Ramala sustained external and internal injuries and the deceased would have died due to the accidental injuries. 11. As per Ex.P5/post-mortum certificate issued by PW12/Dr.K.N.Senthilkumar, the deceased Ramala sustained external and internal injuries and the deceased would have died due to the accidental injuries. PW4/conductor of the bus, has clearly deposed that the revision petitioner/accused alone drove the bus at the time of the accident. From the evidence of PW10/Senthilvelan, who is the Nagapattinam Regional Transport Officer, the involvement of the bus in the accident and the cause of accident is not due to any mechanical defect, has been proved. 12. On a combined reading of Ex.P4/FIR, evidence of PW10/Motor Vehicle Inspector, who had issued Ex.P3/Motor Vehicle Inspection Report and from the unimpeachable oral evidence of PW2/Kannan coupled with the evidence of PW4/bus driver, viz., Muruganantham, & Ex.P5/Autopsy report, this Court comes to the conclusion that the deceased Ramala had died due to the accidental injuries and on that day, the vehicle driven by the revision petitioner/accused has involved in the accident and the revision petitioner/accused drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and thereby, caused accident and due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she died and hence, the essential ingredients of charge under Section 304(A) of IPC is proved. Accordingly, conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality and does not warrant interference at the revisional jurisdiction. 13. I find that there is no perversity in finding by the both the Courts below. Furthermore, I find that the charge has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the conviction for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC of accused is hereby confirmed. 14. Heard both the learned counsels on the point of quantum of sentence. 15. Taking into consideration the multiple factors like the size of the road and other incidental factors as projected by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused, I find that the sentence may be reduced to three months. 16. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands partly allowed only to the extent of reduction in sentence as indicated above and the fine awarded by the Trial Court is kept in tact. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.