Judgment :- This revision petition is filed against the Judgment made in Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2006 dated 21.11.2007 by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court-1), Chidambaram confirming the order passed in C.C.No.174 of 2005 dated 19.6.2006 by the District Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Parangipettai wherein the revision petitioner was convicted for offence under section 304(A) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo 2 months Simple Imprisonment. 2. According to the revision petitioner, there were vital contradictions between the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.6, the alleged eye witnesses in this case. According to him P.W.2 is the sister's son of the deceased and P.W.2 has clearly adduced evidence stating that he has neither seen the car number nor the driver of the car. Therefore, the driver of the vehicle has not been identified. Whereas, P.W.6 who is the Village Panchayat President would only contend that he has not seen the number of the vehicle, but would only contend that he had seen the driver. 3. At the same time, there is another vital contradiction in respect of the place of occurrence, with regard to, whether the deceased was crossing the road or whether the deceased was standing in the road. According to P.W.2, the deceased was crossing the road from the East to West and that he was standing in the Jeevarathinam Grocery store. Whereas, P.W.6 would only state that the deceased was standing in the corner of the road and the vehicle Indica Car was trying to overtake the bus and in that process of overtaking, the car came to the extreme end of the road and hit against the deceased who was standing at the extreme end of the road. Therefore, there are vital discrepancies, with regard to, whether the deceased was crossing the road or whether the deceased was standing in the road. 4. In this connection, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would also point out that there are no eye witnesses, where, as per the evidence of P.W.1, the son of the deceased, he was informed by one Mallika who was stated to have accompanied the deceased for going to work. 4. In this connection, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would also point out that there are no eye witnesses, where, as per the evidence of P.W.1, the son of the deceased, he was informed by one Mallika who was stated to have accompanied the deceased for going to work. When the said Mallika was the informer to the son of the deceased, namely, P.W.1, why she has not been examined or cited as a witness has not been brought to notice. 5. Lastly, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that even P.W.2 could not have seen the occurrence, because, according to his evidence, he was buying materials from the Jeevarathinam Grocery shop. Therefore, it is not the case that he has actually witnessed the accident and he would only say that the deceased was crossing the road. When these discrepancies are very clear, they have neither established the driver nor the manner of the accident. Hence, benefit of doubt ought to have been given only to the accused/ revision petitioner. Hence, this revision. 6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would contend that there is no mechanical fault in this case. As per the Break Inspector P.W.7 and the Investigating Officer, the occurrence took place when the deceased was crossing the road. Even the Court below has clearly pointed out that no doubt the deceased was crossing the road but there is no evidence to state that the deceased was crossing the road without any proper precaution. Similarly, there was evidence to show that the revision petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Therefore, the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion and awarded the sentence. 7. Heard both the parties. By consent of both the parties, the revision is taken up for final disposal. 8. From the evidence available, namely, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6, P.W.1 is the son of the deceased and he has not seen the occurrence. But he has clearly stated that one Mallika who is said to have been accompanied the deceased has informed him about the accident. Thereafter, he went to the hospital. But this Mallika who was the informant to P.W.1 has not been cited as witness nor examined. But he has clearly stated that one Mallika who is said to have been accompanied the deceased has informed him about the accident. Thereafter, he went to the hospital. But this Mallika who was the informant to P.W.1 has not been cited as witness nor examined. She would have been the correct person who would exactly state as to how the accident took place because she has accompanied the deceased. Unfortunately, this vital evidence has not been examined. 9. Now, when we analyse the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.6, P.W.2, though according to the revision petitioner is the close relative of the deceased, has given evidence that the deceased was crossing the road from East to West and that he was standing in the grocery shop of Jeevarathinam. He would actually contend that he has not seen the vehicle number nor has seen the driver but saw the vehicle dashing against the deceased who was crossing the road. In the evidence it was not clear as to how the deceased was crossing the road, to what extent she has crossed the road and where the occurrence took place. In this connection, it is pertinent to point out that if the grocery shop of Jeevarathinam is situated in the front of the place of occurrence, why none from the shop has been examined as a witness or cited as witness. 10. Now, if we analyse the evidence of P.W.6, an independent witness who is said to be the President of the Village Panchayat, he would categorically state that the victim deceased was standing at the end of the road. It was not the case that she was crossing the road, but she was standing on the road. The vehicle-Indica car overtook the bus and in that process hit against the person hit the person who was standing at the end of the road. 11. Therefore, there is vital contradiction inbetween the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.6, namely, in respect of whether the deceased was crossing the road or standing in the corner of the road. Even P.W.6 has not stated the vehicle number. But, he would contend that he has seen the driver of the vehicle. How he has identified the person who drove the vehicle has not been proved before this Court. 12. Even P.W.6 has not stated the vehicle number. But, he would contend that he has seen the driver of the vehicle. How he has identified the person who drove the vehicle has not been proved before this Court. 12. This vital differences, especially, in respect of the deceased person whether standing at the end of the road or whether crossing the road has not been considered by the Court below. Whereas, the Court has taken into consideration that because the deceased was crossing the road, the accident took place. At the same time, the Court has stated that she has also taken precaution in crossing the road coupled with the fact that there is no evidence in respect of the identification of the parties, namely, the driver of the vehicle. 13. Hence, this Court feels that the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused/ revision petitioner and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this is the fittest case where this Court has to interfere with the order of the Courts below as they have neither identified the accused nor clearly stated where the occurrence took place. 14. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order of the Courts below convicting the accused/ revision petitioner for offence under Section 304(A) I.P.C. and the sentence of 6 months Simple Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-in default 2 months Simple Imprisonment is set aside. The fine amount, if any already paid is ordered to be refunded to the revision petitioner.