7. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Appellate Court has rejected the version of the manner of accident, as given by the petitioner in defence, that the accident took place due to sudden burst of tyre and tube of the vehicle, and has held it to be not believable on the ground that there is no legal evidence on record, and only a defence witness, namely, Shankar Sao (D.W.-1) has been examined who has stated in his evidence that the right side tyre and tube had suddenly burst which resulted in the accident. He submits that the learned Appellate Court has recorded that the defence has not produced and marked/exhibited any M.V.I. report in support of his defence. The second reason which has been given by the learned Lower Appellate Court to reject the plea of the petitioner was that from perusal of the cross-examination of P.Ws.-1 to 4, it is clear that at the time of trial, the learned defence counsel did not put any question to any of the material witness on this point. The third point which has been taken by the learned Appellate Court is that at the time of recording of the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused had occasion to explain this fact, but from perusal of his statement, it is quite clear that he has not uttered a single word about the sudden burst of tyre and tube. In view of the aforesaid, the version of the defence that the accident took place due to sudden burst of the tyre and tube of the vehicle was rejected. The learned Appellate Court has also rejected the oral evidence of the defence-witness by
