Judgment S. S. Sudhalkar, J. 1. Petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court also upheld the conviction and hence this revision application has been filed. 2. The brief facts of this case are that on 17-5-1983 at about 4 PM one Gurmam Kaur aged about 65-66 years was going out of Meham Town to answer the call of the nature. When she was crossing the road. a truck driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner came there from Hansi Hissar side and struck against her as a result of which Gurmal Kaur received injuries. She was removed to the Civil Hospital. Meham and when she was taken to Medical College Hospital. Rohtak she succumbed to the injuries suffered by her. 3. Asi Shankar Lal on receipt of the telephone message reached on the spot and recorded the statement of Ram Kishan and sent ruqa to the police station for registration of the case. On the basis of the same formal FIR was recorded. The investigation was taken over by ASI. who filed the challan against the petitioner. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that the truck in question was stopped at Bahadurgarh by the police on receiving the wireless message. From Bahadurgarh also the driver fled away after stopping the truck. The truck alongwith the registration certificate was taken into possession by the police. The petitioner was arrested on 20-5-1983. 5. Both the eye-witnesses namely Ram Kishan and Vijay Singh have stated that the old woman was standing on the side of the road and the truck was driven in a rash and negligent manner. P. W.2 Vijay Singh has stated that the side of the truck dashed with the petitioner. However, it is not shown as to why the truck driver took the truck on the side of the road where the deceased was allegedly standing. In the FIR it is mentioned that Gurman Kaur was crossing the road when the accident took place. It makes a lot of difference if the deceased was crossing the road at that time. If she was crossing the road, then the statement of the witnesses that she was standing on the side of the road is not correct. In the FIR it is mentioned that Gurman Kaur was crossing the road when the accident took place. It makes a lot of difference if the deceased was crossing the road at that time. If she was crossing the road, then the statement of the witnesses that she was standing on the side of the road is not correct. Moreover, if the deceased was crossing the road then there is no evidence to show that the truck was at a safe distance when she started crossing the road. 6. Accidents do take place on the roads and they are unfortunate. However, every accident cannot be said to be because of rash and negligent driving. Eye witnesses Ram Kishan and Vijay Singh in the deposition did not state regarding the deceased crossing road. When this is the position there is a doubt created regarding the negligence of the petitioner and if there is a doubt the benefit has to go to the petitioner. This revision petition deserves to be allowed. 7. As a result this revision petition is allowed the judgments of the courts below are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. Fine if paid is order to be refunded. Revision allowed.