the accident site. While the complaint Ex.A1 is lodged by one Gajula Raju, whereas it is the 1st respondent who is said to be the driver of the auto. He does appear to be literate person and his name is not Gajula Raju (He signed the deposition in English). More importantly, RW2 has stated that there are six inmates in the auto other than the driver. He noticed three of them to have died and three others to have received severe injuries. He further deposed that he has sent them for treatment to the Government Hospital at Wankidi. No record is produced in that regard. In a Medico-Legal case, an injured person would be immediately referred to a hospital, but, however, necessary record will have to be maintained in that regard by a police officer. No such record was produced by RW2. Therefore, the statement of RW2 does not appear to be all that true or correct. If there are injured persons available in that auto and if PW2 was the first to rush there, he would not have failed to notice the injured persons and rescued them as well. An uncomfortable feeling is, therefore, left behind that perhaps both PW2 and RW2 may not be stating all the correct and true facts. That would explain the reason why they have not deposed in clear terms as to extent of damage suffered by the Auto. RW1, the driver has denied and disputed the contents of the complaint Ex.A1. There is also speculation that even prior to the accident, a major branch of the tree has fallen across the road and the driver has failed to notice the same and hence hit the said road block. If this version is true, the injuries to the occupants of the passenger compartment of the auto alone remain inexplicable. I am, therefore, of the opinion that it is more probable that the accident may have occasioned all due to the fall of the Babul tree or a major branch of the said tree on the rear portion of the auto where the passenger compartment is situated and
