is a village area. Though, there is no dynamo lights on both bicycles i.e., deceased as well as P.W.6 the alleged eyewitness. The case of the prosecution is that the accused lost his control over the auto rickshaw and dashed to the bicycle. There is no evidence on record to show the accused lost the control while driving the auto rickshaw and dashed to the bicycle. The IMV report (Ex.P.3) shows, there is no damage caused to the auto rickshaw. Admittedly, the police have not seized the bicycle and not subjected the same to inspection in order to show whether any damage caused to the bicycle due to impact of auto rickshaw. Admittedly, the Ex.P.3 though marked with consent, there is no mention about the damage to the auto rickshaw. Bicycle of the deceased was not seized and produced before the Court to show there was head on collision between both vehicle and bicycle. The evidence of P.W.6 shows he was away from 60 feet away form the place of accident, he was also going on the bicycle on the same way. The Judgment of the trial Court purely based upon the Ex.P.10-the sketch prepared by the police. Ex.P.10 prepared on 14.05.2009, while accident was occurred on 23.04.2009, the sketch was not prepared immediately after the
