Judgment 1. This revision arises against two concurrent judgments of the Courts below convicting the petitioner for offences u/s.279, 337 (5 counts) and 304-A (4 counts) IPC and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.400/- i/d 1 week S.I. for offence u/s.279 IPC; fine of Rs.250/- for each count i/d 1 week S.I. for offence u/s.337 (5 counts) IPC and 1 year S.I. for offence u/s.304-A IPC. 2. The prosecution case was that on 25.03.2000 at about 11.00 p.m., due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the petitioner/accused, four persons died and five persons suffered injuries. A case was registered in Crime No.48 of 2000 on the file of the respondent. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed informing commission of offences u/s.279, 337 (5 counts) and 304-A (4 counts) IPC. The case was tried in C.C.No.69 of 2003 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram, Erode District. 3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and 18 exhibits were marked. None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any exhibits marked. On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court rendered a finding of conviction and sentenced the petitioner to pay fine of Rs.400/- i/d 1 week S.I. for offence u/s.279 IPC; fine of Rs.250/- for each count i/d 1 week S.I. for offence u/s.337 (5 counts) IPC and 1 year S.I. for offence u/s.304-A IPC and directed that the sentences to run concurrently. The appeal of the petitioner in C.A.No.12 of 2008 on the file of learned Additional District Judge, FTC No.III, Erode, came to be dismissed under judgment dated 01.04.2008. Hence, this revision. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side). 5. The present is a case where both Courts below have grossly erred in appreciating the evidence on record. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that this petitioner, driver of the lorry sought to overtake a TVS Moped and that though the rider of the moped initially seemed to be giving way by steering to the left, he suddenly moved towards the middle of the road and towards avoiding him, this petitioner steered the lorry to the right, the lorry hit a heap of sand and fell into an adjoining pit. This version of P.W.1 finds support in the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses. This version of P.W.1 finds support in the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses. Ex.P2 Observation Mahazar informs the presence of a heap of sand while Ex.P8 - Topo Sketch reflects the presence of a sand mound. Ex.P2 also informs that the lorry had fallen into a pit on the side of the road. Therefore, in all likelihood, it is the falling into the pit of the lorry, occasioned by the attempt of the petitioner to avoid an accident, that has led to the death of four persons and injuries to five persons sitting atop the lorry. Therefore, despite the disastrous consequence occasioned by the accident, the benefit of doubt would have to be given to the petitioner. 6. This Criminal Revision shall stand allowed. The judgments of the Courts below are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of all charges. Fine amount, if any, paid by petitioner shall be refunded to him.