JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records of judgment dated 05.08.2015 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Villupuram @ Kallakurichi in Crl.Appeal No.54 of 2012 confirming the judgment dated 01.08.2012 in C.C.No.105 of 2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi to set aside the same and acquit the petitioner.) 1. This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the judgment dated 05.08.2015 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Villupuram @ Kallakurichi in Crl.Appeal No.54 of 2012 confirming the judgment dated 01.08.2012 in C.C.No.105 of 2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi sentenced him to undergo for the offence under Section 337 of IPC (2 counts) and ordered to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month SI and convicted for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and ordered to undergo SI for 6 months and pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo one month SI. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.07.2005 at 05.40 p.m at Vazhavanthankuppam bus stop at Chennai-Salem Highway, a TATA Eicher vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 32/C-1956 driven by the accused with one Selvam, Cleaner and Arumugam Owner of the fish which was transported in the said vehicle to Kerala dashed behind the transport bus causing accidental death of the Cleaner Selvam and grievous injury to Raja, who was travelled as a passenger in the transport bus. The case was registered under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC (2 counts) of IPC in Crime No.164 of 2008. 3. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and marked 10 exhibits. To prove the charges. For the offence under Sections 279, 337 (2 counts), 304-A of IPC. The trial Court held the accused guilty of causing accident due to rash and negligence; held him guilty for offence under Sections 337 (2 counts) and 304-A of IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo 1 month SI for the offence under Section 337 (2 counts) of IPC and to undergo 6 month SI and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo 1 month SI for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. 4. 4. On appeal against the conviction and sentence, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Villupuram @ Kallakurichi in Crl.A.No.54 of 2012 confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence of the Court below in C.C.No.105 of 2007, the persent Cirminal Revision Case is filed challenging the concurrent finding that the ocular evidence of PW-1 and PW-9 are contradictory to each other, which renders the case of the prosecution as unbelievable. The evidence for prosecution makes it clear that the accident occured when the accused paved way for the lorry proceeding towards him rashly which forced the accused to change the direction and the vehicle dashed the rear side of the bus. The Court below erred in not appreciating the evidence properly and held him guilty and thereby caused miscarriage of justice. 5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State that PW-1, the driver of the passenger bus had deposed that when he stopped the bus for the passengers to alight, the accused was driving the Eicher van negligently and hit the rear side of the bus, thereby causing injury to one of the passengers in the bus and death of the co-passenger in the Eicher van. PW-4, the other co-passenger and the owner of the goods, who sustained injury categorically stated that the accused drove the van rashly and hit the bus and the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the van driver. Thus, from the evidence of injured witness and the other witnesses, rash and negligent driving of the accused is proved and therefore, the judgment of the Courts below is to be confirmed. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. Perused the Documents. 7. It is the case where the accident had occurred when the Eicher van hit behind the stationed bus. Apart from the driver of the van, two persons were in the cabin. Cleaner of the van Selvam died. The other person Arumugam examined as PW-4 had deposed incriminating the accused. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring the testimony of this witness in the cross examination admitting that the site of the accident is not a conjusted road but had heavy traffic, contended that the accident occurred only due to the heavy traffic and the lorry which came on the opposite direction. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring the testimony of this witness in the cross examination admitting that the site of the accident is not a conjusted road but had heavy traffic, contended that the accident occurred only due to the heavy traffic and the lorry which came on the opposite direction. However, this Court finds no corroboration to this contention. When it is suggested to PW-4 that the accident occurred, only when the accused paved way for the lorry coming on the opposite direction, the same has been denied. 8. The Motor Vehicles Inspector, who has examined the vehicle had given his report Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, the report for the offending vehicle Eicher van indicates that the damage of the front side of the vehicle and the Vehicle Inspecion Report for the Government Transport Bus indicates that the passenger to the vehicle on the rear side which could primarily established the fact that the accident occurred when the Eicher van hit behind the Government bus. In the said accident, one Selvam died and Arumugam (PW-4) (co-traveller in the van) and Raja (PW-5) (passenger in the bus) sustained injuries. Both were admitted in the hospital and taken treatment for their injuries. Both the injured witnesses had spoken about the accident and the manner in which had occurred. There can be no doubt about their presence in the scene of accident, since they have sustained injury. In the said circumstances, this Court find no error from the conclusion of the Courts below held the accused guilty of the offence and the sentence imposed on him. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.