Judgment :- The petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC by the trial court. After conclusion of trial, the trial court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- failing which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 279 of IPC. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed Criminal Appeal No. 431 of 2006 before the appellate Court and the same was also dismissed on 20.01.2007. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Natarajan was working in a printing press. On 30.01.2004 at about 10.35 pm, after finishing his second shift, the deceased Natarajan was driving the TVS 50 motor cycle bearing Registration No. TNP 844 in which his colleague namely Arasu was travelling as a pillion rider. When the vehicle was nearing the Press Colony bus stop, in the road leading to Coimbatore from Mettupalayam, the deceased Natarajan stopped the vehicle and having a conversation with his colleague. At the time, the accused said to have driven the vehicle – Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. DDZ 6442 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased Natarajan, who was standing on the road. In the impact, the accused sustained grievous injuries on his legs. The motor cycle namely TVS 50 parked by the deceased on the road side also said to have been damaged extensively. According to PW1, Arasu, after hitting the deceased, the driver of the car did not stop the vehicle and proceeded further, but he noted down the registration number of the Car. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to K.R. Hospital, Periyanaickenpalayam, where, after first aid, the the deceased was referred to Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore for better management. Inspite of treatment, the deceased Natarajan died at 3.00 am on the next day. In this context, PW1 Murugesan had given a complaint to the respondent, based on which, the case in Crime No. 54 of 2004 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC. 3. Inspite of treatment, the deceased Natarajan died at 3.00 am on the next day. In this context, PW1 Murugesan had given a complaint to the respondent, based on which, the case in Crime No. 54 of 2004 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC. 3. In order to establish the guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 10 and marked Exs. P1 to P8. On behalf of the petitioner/ accused, no oral evidence was let in or documents marked. The trial court on analysis of the oral and documentary evidence concluded that the deceased is guilty of the offence complained of, which was also confirmed in the appeal filed by the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the court below failed to take note of the fact that the petitioner/accused was not at all identified by the eye witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution or there is no evidence to show that it is the petitioner who had driven the vehicle. There was no test identification parade conducted by the respondent police. In the cross-examination of Pws 1 and 2, who are said to be eye witness, they have miserably failed to establish the guilt against the petitioner. They have given inconsistent version with regard to the place of occurrence and also identity of the accused. There are lot of discrepancies in the version of Pws 1 and 2, while so, the court below ought to have given the benefit of doubt to the petitioner/accused instead of convicting him. 5. On the contrary, the learned Government Advocate would support the case of the prosecution and also sustain the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below by contending that even though in the first information report, the name of the accused was not mentioned, it was mentioned that the deceased sustained injury on being hit by a car bearing Registration No. DDZ 6442 which was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner. However, the accused was identified by the prosecution witnesses in the Court at the time of deposition. The evidence of Pws 1 and 2 was cogent and natural and there is nothing to disbelieve their evidence. However, the accused was identified by the prosecution witnesses in the Court at the time of deposition. The evidence of Pws 1 and 2 was cogent and natural and there is nothing to disbelieve their evidence. Even if there are some contradictions in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, it will not in any way vitiate the case of the prosecution. 6. I heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the accused was not at all identified by the prosecution witnesses and there was no test identification parade conducted. In the absence of the same, the accused cannot be fastened with any criminal liability. Further, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses consists of lot of contradictions and therefore, based on such contradictory version, the petitioner ought not to have been convicted and sentenced by the courts below. 7. It is seen from the first information report that the identity of the driver was not mentioned therein. PW1 in his deposition would say that somebody in the car shouted at the driver of the car to proceed further as the villagers are fast approaching as it was apprehended that a mob may damage the car. It was further stated by PW1 that after hitting the deceased, the vehicle did not stop. Therefore, whatever PW1 deposed can only be construed as a hearsay evidence and his evidence could not connect the accused in any manner. Further, there was no test identification parade conducted to identify the accused and the prosecution witnesses have seen the accused only at the time of trial before the trial court. In this context, the evidence of PW1 in cross-examination can usefully be extracted as follows:- Tamil 8. Therefore, it is clear that PW1 has not seen the accused at the time of the accident and only on the basis of the alarm raised by the inmates of the car, asking the driver Balachandran to take the car, he concluded that the name of the driver of the car is Balachandran. In other words, PW1 never saw the accused immediately after the accident. Therefore, it can be concluded that the accused was not identified by PW1. 9. In other words, PW1 never saw the accused immediately after the accident. Therefore, it can be concluded that the accused was not identified by PW1. 9. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there are inconsistencies in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, especially between the version of Pws 1 and 2. PW1 and 2 were examined as eye witnesses of the accident. PW1 in his cross-examination would depose that "Tamil". Therefore, as per the evidence of PW1, PW2 was not at all present at the scene of occurrence and he was only coming on the way to meet the deceased and the PW1. Further, PW1 would say that "Tamil". This version of PW1 would manifestly make it clear that PW1 has not seen the accident directly but only felt some noise and only thereafter he came to know about the accident. Even though PW1 says he was standing very closely to the deceased, he would depose that he did not sustain any injury. 10. When we analyse the evidence of PW2, who was projected as an eye witness on the side of the prosecution, he would only say this in his cross-examination:- Tamil 11. Even though PW2 would depose that the accident had occurred in front of his eyes, he could not identify the accused. He also categorically deposed that he did not see the accused at the time of accident and he saw the accused only before the Court. Even in his chief examination, PW1 says that even though he was standing near the deceased, he did not sustain any injury. Thus, the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 are not cogent, natural and there are lot of contradictions with regard to the identify of the accused as well as their presence in the scene of occurrence. 12. PW3 is the mahazar witness. PW4 is the brother of the deceased and he was examined to show that on hearing the accident, he went to the hospital and saw the deceased. PW5 and 6 are relatives of the deceased who also, on hearing the accident, went to Ramakrishna Hospital to see the deceased. PW7 is the doctor who performed the autopsy. PW8 is the motor vehicle Inspector. PW9 was the Head Constable and PW10 was the investigation officer. PW5 and 6 are relatives of the deceased who also, on hearing the accident, went to Ramakrishna Hospital to see the deceased. PW7 is the doctor who performed the autopsy. PW8 is the motor vehicle Inspector. PW9 was the Head Constable and PW10 was the investigation officer. Thus, except Pws 1 and 2, who were projected as eye witness on the side of prosecution, there was no other evidence available to show that the accused was identified by any of the prosecution witnesses. As mentioned above, the version of Pws 1 and 2 are doubtful and contradictory with each other, therefore, based on their testimony, the courts below ought not to have convicted and sentenced the petitioner/accused. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled for giving benefit of doubt in his favour. 13. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below are set aside. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The bail bond, if any, executed by the petitioner shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any paid by the petitioner, is ordered to be refunded.