This Criminal Revision is directed against the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, in Crl.A.No.23 of 2015, dated 29.09.2016, modifying the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, in C.C.No.29 of 2014, dated 03.07.2015.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 01.09.2011 at about 9.15 am, the deceased Seithoon Beevi, who was the mother in law of the de-facto complainant was walking along with Ekkakudi South Street road from west to east and at that time, the driver of the bus belongs to TNSTC (TN-63-N-0854) drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, resulting which, she sustained grievous head injury and thereby she died. The Inspector of Police attached to Uthirakosamangai Police Station filed a final report under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC against the accused examining the witnesses.

3.In the trial court, 10 witnesses were examined and 7 Exhibits were marked. When the accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstances, he denied the same. The trial court http://www.judis.nic.in 3 convicted the revision petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default SI for four months for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC and for the offence under Section 294 IPC, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default SI for one month imprisonment. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the revision petitioner filed appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, the learned first appellate court Judge partly allowed the appeal thereby set aside the punishment imposed for the offence under Section 279 IPC and confirmed the punishment imposed for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of the first appellate court, the petitioner is before this court with this criminal revision.

4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients required for the offences with which he stood charged and convicted him for the said offences and none of the witnesses have spoken that the accused has driven the vehicle either rashly or negligently and there is no specific allegation of negligence as http://www.judis.nic.in 4 against the accused in driving the vehicle and the eye witnesses are interested witnesses and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the revision petitioner/accused is entitled to acquittal and prays that the criminal revision has to be allowed.

5.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent/State submitted that the first appellate court appreciated the evidence in a proper manner and believed the evidence of the eye witnesses and having regard to the nature of the offence, passed proper sentence, which does not require any interference by this court and the accused is not entitled for acquittal and prays that the criminal revision may be dismissed.

6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7.PW1 is the complainant and he is the son-in-law of the deceased. PW1 gave Ex.P1 complaint. PW1 in his complaint stated that on 01.09.2011 at 9.15 am, the deceased proceeded from west http://www.judis.nic.in 5 to east on Yekkakudi South Street and at that time, the accused drove his vehicle in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and he went to the Uthiragosamangai Police Station and gave (Ex.A1) complaint.

8.PW1 in his evidence stated that on 01.09.2011 at 9.15 am, when he sit in front of his house, at that time his mother-in-law came to his house to celebrate Ramzon and when he proceeded from west-east on the road, at that time the accused drove his vehicle in a speedy manner and dashed against his mother-in-law and she died on the spot and he went to Uthiragosamangai Police Station and gave (Ex.A1)complaint. PW1 during his chief examination stated that she saw the occurrence. But, during his cross examination he stated that ''vd; khkpahiu NgUe;J lkhh; vd;W mbj;j rj;jk; Nfl;L ghh;j;Njd;.” Hence, on careful perusal of the evidence of PW1, it reveals that he saw the occurrence only after hearing the sound. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 stating that he saw the occurrence is not at all acceptable.

http://www.judis.nic.in 6

9.PW2 is the daughter of the deceased. PW2 deposed that on 01.09.2011, when she returned from her son-in-law house, at that time a town bus came from Ramanathpuram to Uthiragosamangai in a speedy manner and dashed against her mother and her mother died on the spot and her husband gave complaint to Uthiragosamangai police Station.

10.It is to be noted here that PW1 during his cross examination stated that at that time of accident, he and his wife sit in front of his house. But PW2 during her evidence that she saw the accident, while she returned from her son-in-law house. PW1 during his evidence stated that the deceased met with an accident, when she proceeded from west to east on the main road. But PW2 during her cross examination stated that her mother met with an accident, while she came out from her house to main road. Hence, in respect of the alleged occurrence, there are contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW2.

11.PW3 is the neighbour of PW1. He deposed that on 01.09.2011 at 9.00 am, while he was in his house, PW1 called him through his phone and stated that his mother-in-law was met with http://www.judis.nic.in 7 an accident and then he went along with PW1 to the police station and PW1 gave a complaint.

12.In this case, there are contradictions of evidence in respect of giving complaint. PW1 during his chief examination stated that he went to Uthirakosamangai Police Station and gave a complaint. But during his cross examination, he has stated that “rk;gt ,lj;jpy; ehd; nrhd;d tptuj;ij NghyPrhh; vOjpf; nfhz;lhh;fs;. NghyPrhh; vOjpajpy; ehd; ifnaOj;J Nghl;Lf;nfhLj;Njd;. 1 ,lj;jpy; ifnaOj;J Nghl;Nld;. gbj;Jg;ghh;j;Jjhd; ifnaOj;J Nghl;Nld;”.

13.PW2 during her cross examination stated that 'rk;gtk; ele;j nfhQ;r Neuj;jpNyNa NghyPrhh; rk;gt ,lj;jpw;F te;Jtpl;lhh;fs;. rk;gtk; Fwpj;J NghyPrhh; vOjpf;nfhz;lhh;fs;. ehd; NghyPrhh; itj;jpUe;j Ngg;ghpy; ifnaOj;J Nghl;Nld;”.

14.PW3 during his cross examination stated that rk;gt ,lj;jpw;F NghyPrhh; te;jhh;fs;. rk;gtk; ele;j tpguj;ij ehd; jhd; NghyPrhhplk; nrhd;Ndd;. rk;gtj;ij Neubahf ghh;f;fhjjhy; tpgj;J vjphpapd; ftdf;Fiwthf ele;jJ vd;W vd;dhy; nrhy;y KbahJ vd;why; rhpjhd;. ehd; nrhy;y nrhy;y NghyPrhh; vOjpf;nfhz;lhh;fs;. ehd; nrhd;dij vOjpf;nfhz;L m.rh.1 dplk; ifnaOj;J thq;fpf;nfhz;lhh;fs;.” http://www.judis.nic.in 8

15.On careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 to PW3, it revels that PW1 and PW2 gave complaint to the police in the place of occurrence and PW3 also stated that he narrated the occurrence to the police and it was recorded and PW1 signed it. But, the above complaints were suppressed on the side of the prosecution. Hence, the suppression of the earlier complaints is fatal to the prosecution.

16.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused argued that in the case of offence under Section 304(A) IPC, when there was no evidence for rash and negligent driving and the evidence is only for speedy, the revision petitioner/accused is not found guilty under Section 304(A) IPC.

17.At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the decision of this Court reported in 2017-1-LW.(Crl.)160 (M.Subramani Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police, Edapadi Police Station, Salem District), wherein this court has held as follows:-

accident where the accused was prosecuted under Section 304-A IPC, one of the witness had stated that the bus drive came driven the http://www.judis.nic.in 9 bus at a high speed. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that it would not satisfy the requirement of the driver driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as required under Section 304-A IPC and acquitted the accused.”

20.In this respect, the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SATISH (supra) are relevant here to note:-

21.Subsequently, in Abdul Subhan vs. State (NCT of Delhi ) {2007 Cri.L.J. 1089}, in a road accident case for an offence under Section 304-A IPC, the only available http://www.judis.nic.in 11 evidence of an Head Constable is that the bus driver had driven the bus fastly. The Delhi High Court relying on the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in SATISH (supra) held that the bus driver cannot be held to have drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner.

22.In State vs. Avadh Kishore {Crl.L.P. No.213 of 2007 dated 30.1.2009 (Delhi High Court)}, the Delhi High Court reiterated its earlier view in ABDUL SUBHAN (supra).

23.Recently in Puttaiah @ Mahesh vs. State by Rural Police {Crl . Review Petition No.1317 of 2010 dated 4.3.2016 (Karnataka High Court)}, the Karnataka High Court held as under:

Judgment made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.645 of 2017 20.06.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 14 http://www.judis.nic.in