Judgment :- This revision has been preferred against the judgment in C.A.No.151 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore, which had arisen against the judgment in STC.No.667 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham. The accused has been charged under Section 304(A) IPC. Both the courts below have held that the accused is guilty under Section 340(A) IPC and convicted. The trial Court has sentenced the accused to undergo 6 months SI, which was confirmed by the first appellate Court, which necessitated the accused to prefer this revision. 2. After taking cognizance of the offence, the learned Judicial Magistrate has issued summons to the accused and on his appearance copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., were furnished to the accused and when the offence was explained to the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty. Before the trial Court, P.W.1 to P.W.9 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 were marked. 3.P.W.1 is the grand-father of the victim boy aged 3 years. According to him, at the time of the occurrence, the victim boy was on the left side of the road in order to attend to his call of nature and that the accused had driven the town bus bearing registration No.TN-23-N-0554 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the boy, which resulted in his instantaneous death. P.W.1 preferred Ex.P.1-complaint with the police. 4.P.W.2 is the father of the victim. He is not an eye witness to the occurrence. He had rushed to the place of occurrence after hearing the accident. He has seen the boy under the front wheel of the bus lying dead. 5.P.W.3 is the mother of the victim boy, who was also present at the time of the occurrence at the left side of the road. According to her, the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the accused. 6.P.W.4 has corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that only due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused the accident occurred. 7.P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer, who would depose that the Sup-Inspector of Police registered the case under Cr.NO.377 of 2001 against the accused on the basis of the complaint preferred by P.W.1 under Section 304(A) IPC and that he had visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.5-Mahazar in the presence of the witnesses. Ex.P.4 is the FIR. 7.P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer, who would depose that the Sup-Inspector of Police registered the case under Cr.NO.377 of 2001 against the accused on the basis of the complaint preferred by P.W.1 under Section 304(A) IPC and that he had visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.5-Mahazar in the presence of the witnesses. Ex.P.4 is the FIR. He had conducted inquest on the corpse of the deceased and Ex.P.6 is the inquest report. He had drawn rough sketch Ex.P.7 in the presence of the witnesses. 8.P.W.6 has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.7 is the motor vehicle inspector, who had inspected the ill-fated bus. He has opined that the accident has not occurred due to any mechanical defect. Ex.P.3 is his report. 9.P.W.8 is the doctor, who had conducted postmortem on the corpse of the deceased. The doctor has opined that the death would have been caused due to shock and hemorrhage. Ex.P.6 is the postmortem certificate. 10.After completing the investigation P.W.9 has lodged the charge sheet against the accused. 11. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused would deny his complicity with the crime. The accused has examined the conductor of the bus on his side as D.W.1. On the basis of the above evidence both oral and documentary, the learned trial Judge has held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused and consequently convicted the accused under Section 304(a) IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months SI. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.151 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore. The learned first appellate Judge, after scanning the evidence, has concurred with the findings of the learned trial Judge, thereby dismissing the appeal, which necessitated the accused to prefer this revision. 12. Now the point for determination in this revision is whether the accident had occurred due to the sudden crossing of the road by the victim child aged 3 years? 13.The Point:- Admittedly the victim in this case is 3 years aged child. A perusal of the inquest report-Ex.P.6 will go to show that the corpse of the boy was lying beneath the right front side tyre of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-23-N-0554. 13.The Point:- Admittedly the victim in this case is 3 years aged child. A perusal of the inquest report-Ex.P.6 will go to show that the corpse of the boy was lying beneath the right front side tyre of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-23-N-0554. According to P.W.1 & P.W.3, eye witnesses in this case, prior to the accident the boy was attending to his call of nature on the left side of the road. If the accused was rash and negligent in driving the bus then the boy would have been run over on the left side of the front wheel or left side of the back wheel because the bus was proceeding from South to North i.e., Ambur to Gudiyatham. Further it is seen from the rough sketch-Ex.P.7 that the house of the appellant of the child his situated on the opposite side i.e., on the Eastern side. P.W.2 is the father of the victim. He has not seen the occurrence. P.W.3 is the mother of the victim child, who actually was present near the place of occurrence, according to the prosecution both the victim and P.W.3 were standing on the left side of the road facilitating the child to attend to the call of the nature. P.W.3 would go to the extreme to depose that the cause for the occurrence is that the driver was talking to the passengers while driving the bus at the time of occurrence. But admittedly, she was not a passenger in the bus and there is no possibility for her to witness what the accused was doing at the time of the accident while driving the bus. But she would depose in the cross-examination that her son was lying on the left side on mud portion of the road. But the inquest report-Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7-rough sketch will show that the accident had occurred only on the tar road and not in the mud road portion. Under such circumstance, it is clear that only due to the sudden crossing of the road by the victim boy aged 3 years, the accident had occurred. D.W.1, the conductor also has deposed only to this effect. Both the Courts below have over looked the fact that only the right front portion of the wheel was run over on the unfortunate victim boy as seen from Ex.P.6. D.W.1, the conductor also has deposed only to this effect. Both the Courts below have over looked the fact that only the right front portion of the wheel was run over on the unfortunate victim boy as seen from Ex.P.6. Under such circumstance, this Court have necessarily to interfere with the findings of the learned first appellate judge in C.A.No.151 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore. Point is answered accordingly. 14. In the result, the revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore, in C.A.No.151 of 2004 is set aside and the accused is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Bail bond stands cancelled.