6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any doubt. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. They could not be eyewitnesses to the occurrence, since they are close relatives of the deceased. According to P.W.3, who is the son-in-law of the deceased, also walked along with him, after getting down from the bus and they proceeded to see the daughter of the deceased. The petitioner in the same direction drove his van in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. He mainly relied upon the rough sketch produced by the prosecution. It shows that when the deceased walking on the thar road, the petitioner had driven the van and dashed against him adjacent to the thar road and there is a mud road for pedestrians. Therefore, the accident had taken place at the time of crossing the road without noticing the van driven by the petitioner herein. Therefore, the accident had occurred only because of the rash and negligent act of the deceased and not due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner herein. There was no tyre mark in order to prove that the van was stopped suddenly after hitting the deceased. That apart, the deceased person was aged about 76 years at the time of the accident and he had no eyesight. It was also admitted by P.W.3, who is none other than the sonin-law of the deceased. P.W.2 is none other than his neighbour. Therefore, all are set-up witnesses and as such, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any doubt. Even then, both the Courts below mechanically convicted the petitioner.
