ORDER : This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence passed against him in Criminal Appeal No.95 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 01.07.2009 for the offence punishable under Section 304 A IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, Simple Imprisonment for a period of 10 days by confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.579 of 2002 on the file of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka, dated 10.08.2007. 2. Case of prosecution in brief is that on early hours of 04.10.2002, the deceased went to the tea stall of P.W.1/S.Govinda Rao, near IBP Petrol Bunk, Srinagar at about 06.00 hours. After having tea, while he was crossing the road, the accused being driver of Trucker Jeep bearing No.AP31U6578 proceeding from Anakapalle towards Gajuwaka in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed the deceased resulting which, he sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to R.K Hospital by the accused himself in the Trucker and after rendering first aid, the deceased was shifted to K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam for treatment. Basing on the report of PW1, a case is registered as Crime No.25 of 2002 under Section 337 of IPC. While so, during the treatment in the hospital, accused died on 07.10.2002. On receipt of the death intimation from the PW3 who is the brother of the deceased vide Ex.P2, the Section of law is altered to Section 304-A of IPC. 3. During the course of investigation, P.W.6/SI of Police examined and recorded the statement of the witness and conducted inquest of deceased and sent the body for Post Mortem Examination. P.W.5 conducted Post Mortem and executed Ex.P4 wherein it was reported multiple injuries. A charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC. 4. The plea of the accused is of total denial stating that he never committed any offence. The contention of the defence as seen from the suggestions put to the witness is that while the deceased was suddenly crossing the road due to his negligence, accident occurred. 5. 4. The plea of the accused is of total denial stating that he never committed any offence. The contention of the defence as seen from the suggestions put to the witness is that while the deceased was suddenly crossing the road due to his negligence, accident occurred. 5. Learned trial judge after hearing both the counsels and on appreciating of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC stating that though it is suggested to PWs. 1 & 2 due to the negligence of the deceased while crossing the road the accident occurred, they denied as such the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 304 A of IPC. Accordingly, convicted under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as stated supra. The accused carried the matter in Criminal Appeal No.95 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam wherein, the learned judge confirmed the judgment of the trial Court on the point of conviction and sentence thereafter, dismissed the appeal. 6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the concurrent judgments of the Court below, the accused preferred the present revision on the ground that learned judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective and erroneously convicted though no material on record disclosed commission of the offence, that the Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt, that only basing on the evidence of Pws.1 & 2 though there is discrepancy relating to number of the crime vehicle, learned judge erroneously came to the conclusion that the accused committed the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Accordingly prays to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned judgment. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Perused the entire record. The point for determination is whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the accused is sustainable or it warrants any interference while sitting in revision? 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the case of the prosecution is that the P.Ws.1 & 2 witnessed the accident. According to PW.1, his business is at a distance of half kilometer from a four-road junction. PW2 submitted that the accident occurred while the deceased was crossing the road. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the case of the prosecution is that the P.Ws.1 & 2 witnessed the accident. According to PW.1, his business is at a distance of half kilometer from a four-road junction. PW2 submitted that the accident occurred while the deceased was crossing the road. Learned counsel would submit that the learned Judge failed to appreciate the evidence in the right perspective, no rough sketch of scene of offence is filed to depict the scene to understand or otherwise the plea of accused that while the deceased was suddenly crossing the road incident occurred. Except oral testimony of PWs.1 & 2 nothing is on record and PWs.1 & 2 also alleged to have witnessed the incident not from the close circle to speak about the rash and negligence on the part of the accused in commission of the crime. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that there is ample evidence on record. The evidence of PW.1 is well corroborated by the evidence of PW2 and coupled with exhibits P1 to P6 would squarely establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. The concurrent judgments of the Courts below do not suffer from any infirmity which warrants interference of this Court in revision, prays to dismiss the revision. 10. It is profitable to extract Section 304-A of IPC which reads thus, “Section 304A. Causing death by negligence.— Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” 11. It is needless to say that to record conviction against the person for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on two points. (1) Whether the accused was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant point of time? (2) Whether he drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner resulting the accident, deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident? 12. There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident at the relevant point of time i.e., on 04.10.2002 at about 6.00 hours. (2) Whether he drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner resulting the accident, deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident? 12. There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident at the relevant point of time i.e., on 04.10.2002 at about 6.00 hours. According to PWs.1 & 2 immediately after the accident, the accused himself shifted the deceased to R.K Hospital for first aid, after that he was shifted to K.G Hospital, Visakapatnam for better treatment. After four days, accused succumbed to injuries. According to PW.1, the deceased came to his Tea stall near the petrol bunk, after having tea while he was crossing road, the accident occurred. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that P.W.1 witnessed the accident within a distance of half kilometer but not in the close circle. His evidence that a jeep was coming speedily and dashed the deceased cannot be given much merit/weight. 13. PW1 did not state anything about the rash and negligent act of the accused in commission of the crime. He testified that the deceased used to reside on footpath and nobody was coming while he was crossing the road. Nonetheless, he denied that deceased suddenly crossed the road without observing the vehicles, the accident occurred. As rightly stated by learned Public Prosecutor, there is no cross examination to PWs.1 & 2 on the point of the identity of the accused, therefore the prosecution has proved that the accused was the driver at the relevant point of time. However, that by itself is not suffice to convict for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. 14. The prosecution has to prove the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. There is a discrepancy in the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 relating to the number of the crime vehicle. PW.3 is the brother of the deceased but according to him after the death of his brother, he rushed to the K.G Hospital. His evidence is in no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. PW4 is the person in whose presence, the police conducted inquest of the deceased, vide panchanama Ex.P3. There is no dispute about this fact. PW5 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P4 stating that deceased died due to multiple injuries. 15. His evidence is in no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. PW4 is the person in whose presence, the police conducted inquest of the deceased, vide panchanama Ex.P3. There is no dispute about this fact. PW5 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P4 stating that deceased died due to multiple injuries. 15. Coming to the evidence of PW6, in cross examination he says that he has no personal knowledge about the investigation, he did not prepare rough sketch or observation report and the accident occurred while the deceased was crossing the road. In the absence of observation of scene of offence and rough sketch of the scene, it is very difficult to decide the truth or otherwise on the plea of the accused that the deceased suddenly crossing the road due to which the accident occurred. This would definitely go to the benefit of the accused. It is apt to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahadeo Hari Lokre v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SCC 221 wherein it was held that: “If a person suddenly crosses the road the Bus Driver, however slowly may be driving may not be in a position to save the accident. Therefore, it will not be possible to hold that the Bus Driver was negligent.” 16. The facts of the case on hand are similar to the case referred supra in identical situation, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is not possible for anybody to avert the accident when somebody suddenly crosses the road when the driver was holding a heavy vehicle. 17. Though the prosecution established that the accused was the driver at the relevant point of time, which the accused has not denied, the prosecution failed to prove the rash and negligent act on the part of accused to convict for offence u/s. 304-A IPC. It appears that the learned trial judge and the first appellate judge lost sight of these aspects of the matter in concluding that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused. 18. In the light of the discussion referred to supra, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment brooks interference of this Court since there is a failure to exercise jurisdiction to decide the case in right perspective according to law. 19. 18. In the light of the discussion referred to supra, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment brooks interference of this Court since there is a failure to exercise jurisdiction to decide the case in right perspective according to law. 19. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, acquitting the accused for the offences under Section 304-A of IPC. The fine amount if any paid by the accused shall be returned to the accused forthwith. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.