of the deceased due to which, he died on the spot. They deposed that crane vehicle was stopped at a distance and the driver ran away from the spot. P.W.2 clearly identified the accused during the course of trial and P.Ws.4 & 6 supported the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.4 is a salesman in Britania Biscuit Company and according to him, he was passing on the road at that time and witnessed a crane lorry hitting Hero-Honda Motor Cycle. Though P.Ws.2 & 4 were cross-examined, nothing could be elicited from them to discredit their testimonies. P.W.6 deposed that he is having a flower shop and on that day, he was going to purchase flowers and when he reached the scene of offence, he noticed that a crane lorry suddenly came in a rash and negligent manner, hit the Hero-Honda Motor Cycle from back side due to which, the rider of the motor cycle fell on the road and the crane lorry passed over his head. He also identified the accused in the Court. According to the grounds urged in the revision, P.Ws.2, 4 & 6 have admitted in their crossexamination that they have not stated before the police that the crane lorry came at high speed, but this contention was raised before the trial Court and appellate Court also and both the Courts discarded this objection on the ground that it is not a material omission particularly when they stated about the negligent act of the driver, non speaking about the speed of the vehicle is not very much material. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence of these three witnesses either by the trial Court or by appellate Court that is the only objection raised in the revision.
