5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner. PW3, PW4 & PW5 are the eye witnesses to the accident. They have clearly deposed about the accident and the petitioner being the driver, who driven the bus on that day had caused the accident. PW1 is the Village Administrative Officer, who lodged the complaint. On his complaint, PW19, the Inspector of Police registered the First Information Report, visited scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar, examined witnesses present in the scene of occurrence namely PW1 to PW5, PW8 and PW9, as regards to the accident. PW10 is the Observation Mahazar witness. PW11 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who gave Motor Vehicle report Ex.P3. PW12 is the Post-Mortem Doctor, who had given Post-Mortem report Ex.P4. From the Motor vehicle report, it is seen that the vehicle was in good condition, the Post-Mortem report, confirm the deceased died due to the run-over of the bus on her head. PW13, PW14 & PW17 identified the deceased. PW19 is the Inspector of Police who registered the case and investigated. PW16 is the Investigating Officer, who completed the investigation and filed the final report under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC. The Lower Court, on the evidence of the witnesses and materials produced, convicted the petitioner for offences under Sections 279 & 304(A)of IPC and sentenced the petitioner for offence under Section 304(A) of IPC, no separate sentence given for offence under Section 279 of IPC. The Lower Appellate Court analysed the evidence and materials independently and confirmed the conviction and sentence.
