THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL. CRL.RC.No.1298 of 2008 Oral Order: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Judgment dated 9.6.2008 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the conviction of the petitioner- accused for the offence punishable under Sections 337 and 338 IPC and sentenced to pay Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- respectively, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days and one month respectively, imposed by the learned Special Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Chittor in CC No.245 of 2005 dated 13.2.2006. Facts in brief are that the petitioner-accused is the driver of KSRTC bus bearing no.KA-13F-1227, and that allegation is that on 10.2.2005 at about 7 p.m. while the petitioner was driving the said bus on Chittoor- Palamaner road and when it reached near Iruvaram Bridge turning, he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle coming in opposite direction being driven by P.W.3, P.W.1 pillion rider, as a result of which P.Ws.1 and 3 fell down on the road and sustained injuries. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were got marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. The learned Magistrate found the petitioner- accused guilty of the offence and sentenced him as stated supra. The petitioner is unsuccessful in appeal before the appellate Court. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, except the interested testimony of P.W.2, who is not an eye witness, both the Courts found the petitioner-accused guilty of the offence erroneously. It is further contended that evidence on record clinchingly establishes the fact that at the relevant point of time P.W.3 who drove the motor cycle himself skid and fell down on the road and at that time he was in a intoxication condition, that for the sake of claiming compensation, P.Ws.1 and 3 have roped the RTC bus which was coming in opposite direction which came after sometime after the injured fell down on the road. Learned counsel therefore, submitted that evidence on record did not establish the fact that the petitioner-accused drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner at the relevant point of time so as to held him guilty of offence and hence conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both the Courts have concurrently held the petitioner-accused guilty of offence and hence the same needs no interference by this Court. The point for consideration in this case is as to whether the Prosecution able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt so as to sustain the conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below and whether it needs to be modified, set aside or varied ? There is no dispute that P.Ws. 1 and 3 sustained injuries on 10.2.2005 in the accident. The question is as to whether they fell down on the road due to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the RTC bus which was coming in opposite direction or whether it was mistake of PW.3 himself who was driving the motorcycle in a intoxication condition, having lost the balance and fell down and sustained injuries. Both P.Ws.1 and 3 have stated that RTC bus came in opposite direction and hit against their motor cycle on the right side handle due to which they fell down and sustained injuries. The only eye witness is P.W.2. In his evidence he deposed that at the relevant point of time he was coming behind P.Ws.1 and 3 and that RTC bus dashed against the motor cycle due to which P.Ws.1 and 3 fell down and it is the accused who was driving the RTC bus at that point of time and that P.Ws. 1 and 3 were shifted to the hospital. P.W.2 is conspicuously silent as to whether the driver of the RTC bus drove in rash and negligent manner in a high speed causing the accident. His evidence only shows that there was an accident of motorcycle and bus and he has not spoken about the rash and negligent acts on the part of the accused-driver. The evidence of the medical officers is relevant. While P.W.4 who is the Doctor who treated P.W.1 deposed that he sustained simple injuries, the P.W.5-Doctor of Neurology Department, CMC Hospital, Vellore certified about Ex.P.3-wound certificate of P.W.3. Ex.P.3 certifies that injured P.W.3 was brought to the hospital on 10.2.2005 and in the column as to how the accident took place it was recorded “ skidded while on two wheeler”. It is also placed on record under Ex.P.3 that at the relevant point of time P.W.3 was under the influence of Alcohol. The scene of offence Panchanama Ex.P.5 shows that place of accident is a curve. These circumstances coupled with the evidence of P.W.2, wound certificate Ex.P.3 clinchingly establish the fact that both the Courts below failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perspective and erroneously found the petitioner- accused of guilty of the offence as stated supra. The petitioner-accused is therefore entitled for the benefit of doubt. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are set aside and the fine amount if any paid by the petitioner shall be returned to the petitioner. Miscellaneous Petitions if any shall stand closed. JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL Dt 16-12-2015 KK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL. CRL.RC.No.1298 of 2008 16-12-2015