Judgment Present is the Cri.Revn.Appln. filed on behalf of the applicant since he is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 23rd December, 1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar in S.T.C.No.279 Of 1995, by which the learned Magistrate was pleased to convict the applicant for the offences punishable U/Section 304(A) and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [In short, the I.P.Code] and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- [Rs.Five Hundred only] on both counts and in default of payment of fine, it was directed that the accused shall suffer further simple imprisonment for one month; together with the Judgment and Order dated 30th August, 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Appeal No.83 Of 1997 by which the learned lower appellate court was pleased the dismiss the Criminal Appeal and confirmed the order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate. [2] The brief facts showing the travel of the present case from the court of the learned Magistrate to this court, can be enumerated as briefly as possible, as under :- [i] Mahadeo Baburao Dahiphale [PW No.1] is the father of unfortunate girl - Tai, aged about 4 ½ years, who lost her life on 25th July, 1995, filed First Information Report with Police Station, Pathardi, Dist. A. Nagar. The F.I.R. is at Exh.No.11. By the said F.I.R., it was reported by said Mahadeo that on 25/07/1995 in the morning time, he had been to his agricultural field. His wife, parents and children were at home. In between 8.30 to 9.00 a.m. he returned from his agricultural field and went to one hotel, situated opposite to his house, for taking tea. Noticing him in a hotel, his daughter – Tai came there. After taking tea, he asked his daughter to go back to the house, therefore, Tai proceeded towards their house and in that process when she was crossing the road, one S.T. Bus coming from village Karodi gave dash to Tai, due which she lost her life. These are the basic features of the F.I.R. According to the F.I.R. at the relevant time, the applicant was driving the ill fated bus. These are the basic features of the F.I.R. According to the F.I.R. at the relevant time, the applicant was driving the ill fated bus. [ii] As soon as the matter was reported, offence was registered with Police Station, Pathardi against the present applicant vide CR No. I 202/95 for the offences punishable U/Section.s. 304(A), 279 of the I.P. Code. The applicant was immediately arrested. The investigating agency swung into the action. Inquest panchnama was drawn. Same is at Exh.No.17. The panchnama of spot of occurrence was also drawn, in presence of panchas – Maruti Dahiphale and Raghunath Sonawane [P.W.No.5]. The spot panchnama is at Exh.No.16. Dead body of Tai was sent to Rural Hospital, Pathardi, where Dr. Ramprasad Kulkarni [P.W.No.6] conducted autopsy and gave post mortem report. P.M. Report is at Exh.No.19. According to the opinion expressed in the post mortem report, probable cause of death was due to traumatic and neurotic shock, due to injury to the brain. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Pathardi, Dist. A.Nagar on 31st July, 1995 vide Charge-Sheet No. I 180/95. [iii] The learned Magistrate on the appearance of the present applicant before him, recorded his plea on 11th September, 1996. The same is at Exh.No.7. The applicant abjured his guilt and claimed for trial. [iv] In order to bring home the guilt of the present applicant, the prosecution has examined in all six witnesses and also relied upon the proved documents. The learned Magistrate on appreciation of the evidence found that, on the date and time of incident, the accused was driving his S.T. bus bearing registration No.MH/12/8127 and gave dash to Tai. The learned Magistrate further recorded that, at the relevant time, the applicant was driving his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and, therefore, he held the applicant guilty of committing an offence punishable U/Section.s. 304(A) and 279 of the I.P. Code and handed him down with the sentenced as discussed in the opening paragraph of this Judgment. [v] The applicant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the findings of guilt and order of sentence against him, preferred Criminal Appeal before the Court of Sessions at Ahmednagar. Said Criminal Appeal was registered as Cri. Appeal No.83/1997 and said Criminal appeal was made over to the file of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. [v] The applicant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the findings of guilt and order of sentence against him, preferred Criminal Appeal before the Court of Sessions at Ahmednagar. Said Criminal Appeal was registered as Cri. Appeal No.83/1997 and said Criminal appeal was made over to the file of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. The learned lower appellate court heard the parties to the Criminal Appeal and vide his Judgment and Order dated 30/08/2000 was pleased to dismiss the Criminal Appeal by concurring with the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate. It is against these two orders, the applicant is before this court. [3] Present Cri. Revn. Appln. was admitted by this court on 09/01/02. Prior to the said order of admission, on 5th October, 2000 this court [Coram : B.B. Vagyani, J.] passed an order and released the applicant on bail. I have heard Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr. A.S. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra in extenso. With their able assistance I have gone through the impugned judgments. [4] The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that, both the courts below have committed serious mistake at law since, according to him, on the available evidence, it was not open for the courts below to record the findings that the at the time of incident, the appellant was driving his vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The learned counsel strenuously argued before me that, looking to the quality of the evidence, as brought on the record by the prosecution and while appreciating such evidence, in such a way to record findings of guilt against the present applicant, is an example of perverse approach on the part of the courts below. He further submitted that the deceased died due to an accident and for that the applicant cannot be held guilty. Alternatively, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that, this is a fit case, wherein benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended in favour of the present applicant, who is at the fag end of his carrier as S.T. bus driver and he is the sole bread winner for his family. [5] Per contra, the learned A.P.P. submitted that, there is sufficient material and evidence available on record which clinchingly proved the guilt of the present applicant. [5] Per contra, the learned A.P.P. submitted that, there is sufficient material and evidence available on record which clinchingly proved the guilt of the present applicant. According to the learned A.P.P. both the courts below have correctly evaluated the evidence and, therefore, there is no error, either of fact or of law and hence, he submitted that, present Cri. Revn. Appln. be dismissed. The learned A.P.P. further urged that, though it is the first offence on the part of the present applicant still, looking to the gravity of offence, benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 may not be extended in favour of the present applicant. [6] Before adverting to the factual aspect, let's have the survey of Section 304(A) of the I.P. Code. Causing death by negligence :- Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Section 279 of the I.P. Code reads as under :- Rash driving or riding on a public way:- Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 304(A) will come into picture if the death is caused by rash and negligent act. Section 279 can be made applicable, if the driver is found to be rash and negligent while driving the vehicle on a public way. Therefore, in order to prove the guilt of the applicant, the prosecution was under obligation to prove the factum of rash and negligent act, on the part of applicant beyond reasonable doubt. In the backdrop of aforesaid legal provisions, let's scan and scrutinize the prosecution evidence. Therefore, in order to prove the guilt of the applicant, the prosecution was under obligation to prove the factum of rash and negligent act, on the part of applicant beyond reasonable doubt. In the backdrop of aforesaid legal provisions, let's scan and scrutinize the prosecution evidence. [7] This court is aware of the legal position that, normally the revisional court shall refrain from re-appreciating the evidence of prosecution however, since it is foremost contention of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that, the court below have not only appreciated the prosecution evidence correctly but in perverse manner, therefore, in order to examine and appreciate the said contention of the learned counsel for applicant, this court is required to examine the evidence brought on the record by the prosecution, afresh. [8] In the present case, the prosecution agency has examined following six witnesses :- PW No.1 Mahadeo Baburao Dahiphale. Father of unfortunate girl and eye witness. PW No.2 Duryodhan Hanmanta Dahiphale. Eye witness. PW No.3 Chhagan Trimbak Palve. Eye witness. PW No.4 Jaywant Baburao shinde, conductor of the offending ST Bus. PW No.5 Raghunath Bhikaji Dahiphale. Panch witness, who proved the spot panchnama. PW No.6 Exh.No.16. Dr. Ramprasad Purushottam Kulkarni, who conducted autopsy and proved post mortem report Exh.No.19. In the present case, the Investigating Officer was not examined before the court. [9] According to PW No.1 Mahadeo he was sitting in hotel at 9.00 a.m. That time, his daughter - Tai came there. After having tea, he asked to his daughter to return to the house. Evidence of PW 1 Mahadeo shows and suggest that when Tai was returning to his house that time, one S.T. bus came in a speed and gave dash to Tai. According to this witness front wheel of the S.T. bus ran over the head of the deceased. From his substantive evidence, he disclosed the presence of Ishwar Laxman, Duryodhan Hanmanta, Chhagan Trimbak, Babu Keshu and Prakash Paraji as persons who had witnesses the said incident. Though the F.I.R. is not encyclopedia of the case of the prosecution, it is to be noted here that the names of the aforesaid persons, who according to PW No.1 Mahadeo had witnessed the incident, are not finding place in the F.I.R. Exh.No.11. [10] PW No.2 Duryodhan Hanmanta Dahiphale admitted that he is distant relative of Mahadeo. Though the F.I.R. is not encyclopedia of the case of the prosecution, it is to be noted here that the names of the aforesaid persons, who according to PW No.1 Mahadeo had witnessed the incident, are not finding place in the F.I.R. Exh.No.11. [10] PW No.2 Duryodhan Hanmanta Dahiphale admitted that he is distant relative of Mahadeo. Chhagan Palwe, though not related to PW 1 Mahadeo however, his evidence shows that, he was sitting with PW No.2 Duryodhan Dahiphale at the time of incident. Normally the mentioning of names of the persons, who had witness the incident in the F.I.R. would have look most natural. Though not finding their names in the F.I.R., would not result the entire case of the prosecution as untruthful. However, when such persons are examined as a witnesses to the incident, the court is expected to scrutinize their evidence closely and should always seek corroboration from the witnesses inter se in order to lend assurance about their presence. [11] Admittedly, the place of incident is a road passing from East to West near the S.T. bus stop of village Mohata, Tal. Pathardi. Though there is no mention about the situation of the house of PW No.1 Mahadeo in the spot panchnama Exh.No.16, from the F.I.R. Exh.No.11 it appears that, his house is situated opposite to the hotel, where he was taking the tea. [12] PW No.2 Duryodhan, as per his claim from the witness-box deposed that, he was sitting near the S.T. bus stop. According to him, that time he found daughter of Mahadeo, 4 years old girl, was going towards her house. At that time, bus which was in a high speed gave dash to Tai. PW No.3 Chhagan claims that he was sitting in a hotel alongwith Ishwar, Prakash and PW 2 Duryodhan and that time, Tai, 4 years girl was going towards her house that time one S.T. bus came in a high speed and gave dash to her. [13] It is established on record through the evidence of prosecution witnesses that there is a curve to road at a distance of 100 fts. from the bus stop and every vehicle has to slow down its speed at the said curve. There is unanimity on this aspect by PW No.1 Mahadeo and PW No.2 Duryodhan. PW 1 Mahadeo is silent in his evidence that, who were his companion while taking tea. from the bus stop and every vehicle has to slow down its speed at the said curve. There is unanimity on this aspect by PW No.1 Mahadeo and PW No.2 Duryodhan. PW 1 Mahadeo is silent in his evidence that, who were his companion while taking tea. Further even remotely, it is not appearing in his evidence that, in the said hotel, PW No.2 Duryodhan or PW No.3 Chhagan were sitting. Evidence of Duryodhan [P.W.No.2] would reveal that he was sitting near the S.T. bus stop; whereas Chhagan [P.W.No.3] discloses that he was sitting in hotel alongwith PW No.2 Duryodhan. Important to note that PW No.3 Chhagan is silent about the fact that in the hotel, PW No.1 Mahadeo was there. Looking to the fact that the place of incident is a small village and mentioning of fact in the evidence of PW No.2 that he was sitting near bus stop that impliedly suggests and shows that it was not bus stand. It is common knowledge that word “bus stop” and word “bus stand” connotes different meaning. At a bus stop, bus halts for a while just for boarding and alighting the passengers; where-as at bus stand, the halt is brief. Looking the fact that Mohata is a small village, having bus stop and in absence of any positive evidence on record, one can safely reach to the conclusion that there must not be more than one hotel at the relevant time. When there is variance on material particulars about the very presence of PW 1 Mahadeo, in the hotel, it was important for Mahadeo if noticed the presence of witnesses, who he has mentioned in his evidence at near by place. [14] Important aspect which though will be looking very small but is having great impact in order to ascertain the very presence of PW 2 Duryodhan on the spot is that, the first informant did not disclose in his evidence that at the time of lodging the F.I.R. which was lodged immediately and the dead body of Tai was taken to the Rural Hospital, Pathardi, that time, PW No.2 Duryodhan accompanied him, apart from non mentioning of other witnesses who were with him when they reached to the Police Station. Presence of Duryodhan was important because Duryodhan is the relative of Mahadeo. Presence of Duryodhan was important because Duryodhan is the relative of Mahadeo. If really Duryodhan accompanied Mahadeo alongwith dead body of Tai, in Police Station such important fact would not have been missed by Duryodhan when he was deposing from the witness box. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it will be unsafe to accept the version of PW No.2 Duryodhan and P.W.No.3 Chhagan that they were present, if not in the hotel but near the ST bus stop. Evaluation of the prosecution evidence in respect of presence of these two witnesses forced me to keep the evidence of these two witnesses at bey and the same is not useful for the prosecution to substantiate its case, beyond reasonable doubt against the present applicant. If the evidence of PW No.2 Duryodhan and PW No.3 Chhagan is out of consideration, then only evidence that is helpful for the prosecution is the evidence of PW No.1 Mahadeo. PW 1 Mahadeo was examined to prove that at the relevant time, the applicant was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently. [15] Evidence of PW No.6 Dr.Ramprasad shows that, while conducting the post mortem, he found following injuries on the dead body of child:- (i) Contusion on Rt. Upper flang near axila 4 x 2 c.m. Red in colour. (ii) Multiple punch marks on Lt.Lower Flang and abdomen due to sand. (iii) Abrasion on Rt. Lateral occipital region. These are the external injuries, which Doctor noticed. On opening of the body of the child, Doctor noticed following internal injuries :- (i) Vertical fracture in Lt. anteria clinical fossa. (ii) Oblique fracture Rt.middle fossa. (iii) Cerebellum mid brain pons and medulla region congested contusion on several. P.W.No.6 Dr. Kulkarni was frank enough in admitting that if the child goes running and fell on the ground, injuries in column No.17 are possible. [16] PW No.1 Mahadeo has stated in his examination that front wheel of the S.T. bus passed away on the head of the deceased. This evidence of PW No.1 is nothing but great exaggeration. Looking to the fact that her head was found intact and at the time of conducting autopsy it was opened. Therefore, said evidence will have to be excluded from the consideration. This evidence of PW No.1 is nothing but great exaggeration. Looking to the fact that her head was found intact and at the time of conducting autopsy it was opened. Therefore, said evidence will have to be excluded from the consideration. Following statements appearing in the cross examination of PW No.1 Mahadeo will throw searching light to reach to the conclusion about the fact of rash and negligent driving, which are reproduced hereinunder:- “There is a curve 100 fts. away from Bus Stop. The speed of any vehicle slows down on the said curve.” The incident occurred just near the bus stop. Even according to PW No.1 Mahadeo every vehicle required to slow down on the curve. Looking to the distance of 100 fts. of said curve from the bus stop and looking to the nature and make of the vehicle involved in the said incident, it is just impossible that within a span of 100 fts. vehicle like S.T. bus can pick up great speed. Therefore, one can visualize after slow down the bus on curve, what must have been the speed when that bus reached near the bus stop by crossing distance of 100 fts.; obviously, the bus must not have been at a high speed, as claimed by PW No.1 Mahadeo. On close look of impugned Judgment and Order, it is clear that, both the learned court below have clearly missed the aforesaid aspect which can be deduced from the available evidence in the prosecution case. [17] AIR 1972 S.C. 221 . Mahadeo Hari Lokre V/s. The State of Maharashtra is one of the authoritative pronouncement from the Hon'ble Apex Court that was relied upon from the side of the applicant not only before this court but also it was relied before the learned Magistrate. The Hon'ble Apex Court though on the fact of that particular case has pronounced that, if a pedestrian suddenly crosses a road without taking note on the approaching bus there is every possibility of his dashing against the bus without the driver becoming aware of it. The bus driver cannot save accident however slowly he may be driving and therefore, he cannot be held to be negligent in such a case. [18] In the present case, really speaking, place of Tai, 4½ years girl ought to have been in the lap of his father and not on the public road. The bus driver cannot save accident however slowly he may be driving and therefore, he cannot be held to be negligent in such a case. [18] In the present case, really speaking, place of Tai, 4½ years girl ought to have been in the lap of his father and not on the public road. From the evidence of prosecution witnesses especially from the evidence of PW No.1 Mahadeo, it is clear that Tai was crossing the road. As discussed above, since bus was not in a high speed and in absence of evidence on the part of PW 1 Mahadeo that at the relevant time, the applicant drove his bus in rash and negligent manner; but only deposed that it was in a high speed, from which, it is clear that unfortunate incident was not a result of rash or negligent driving on the part of the present applicant. It was a great misfortune for that little girl to meet such a tragic end. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the fact that there is no clinching and consistent evidence about the manner in which the applicant was driving the bus and in absence of any positive evidence that it was driven rashly or negligently, I find it is fit case, wherein benefit of doubt has to be extended to the present applicant, since the prosecution case falls short on that count. Hence, I pass the following order :- ORDER (i) Cri.Revn.Appln.No.238 Of 2000 is allowed. (ii) The Judgment and Order of conviction dated 23rd December, 1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar in S.T.C.No.279 Of 1995 for the offences punishable U/Section.s. 304(A) and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 together with Judgment and Order dated 30th August, 2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Appeal No.83 Of 1997, are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Applicant/accused is acquitted for those two punishable sections. (iv) The applicant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. (v) Rule made absolute in above terms.