applicant was driving his truck in a speedy manner and thereby the accident happened. Learned counsel would submit that the said witnesses was asked that at the time of the incident, whether he was in a cycle which was denied by this witness. As submitted, in statement of the Laxman @ Ganpat (PW-2) recorded under Section 161 of the Code, he did not say anything that he was in the truck which caused the said accident. From his statement it is not specific that he was in the same truck. Thereby this witness improved his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code and on the basis of his statement conviction cannot be held as proper. There is no other witness who saw the incident. The fact that the applicant was the driver of the said truck and in a accident Somaruram, who was going in a cycle, met the accident with the said truck and he died on account of injuries sustained by him, is not in dispute. Learned counsel would further submits that as the act of the present applicant that he was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner is not proved, no conviction can be based on the basis of the evidence adduced during the trial , hence, by convicting the applicant, the trial Court as well as the appellant court committed illegality, hence revision may be allowed and the applicant may be acquitted for the charges.
