THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No.82 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 25.1.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2003 on the file of VII Additional Sessions Judge,(FTC) Guntur, whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur by judgment dated 16.06.2003 in C.C.No.309 of 2001, was confirmed. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 15.12.2001 at about 7.00 a.m. the petitioner-accused drove the lorry bearing No. 77/6260 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against cyclist by name Syed Vali causing fracture injures, who later succumbed to injuries on 20.12.2001 while undergoing treatment in GG Hospital, Guntur. 3. In support of his case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7, whereas no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted that according to prosecution, PWs 1 and 3 were eye witnesses to the accident, and that the motor vehicle accidents need not always be deemed to rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver. It can be due to mechanical defects in the vehicle. He sought indulgence of this court to proceed on similar lines. He found fault with the trial court in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 304 A IPC, and for confirming the same by the first appellate court. 5. However, this court is unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 who are examined as direct eye witnesses, according to whom, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner-accused at the relevant point of time. 6. He further contended that the Investigating Officer who investigated the case, and the Doctor who treated the deceased for the injuries at the initial stages, were not examined by the prosecution and the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 7. This court is of the view that non-examination of the said witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution in view of direct evidence of PWs 1 and 3- eye witnesses to the accident. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the prosecution case stating that both the courts below came to their respective conclusions after considering the evidence both oral and documentary and other material on record. Therefore, the finding of the first appellate court does not in any way warrant interference by this court. 9. In the above circumstances, this court is of the view that the revision petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J -12-2009 Stp