ORDER : The accused in C.C.No.1046 of 2004, who is also the appellant in C.A.No.18 of 2007, has directed this revision. 2. On 20.1.2003, at about 2.15 a.m., on the Karur-Salem National Highway, near Kumarasamy Engineering College, the revision petitioner came driven the Government Bus TN-57-N-0824 from Madurai towards Salem. While from the opposite side from Salem towards Madurai on the very same road one Subramaniya Raja came driven the Hero Honda Car TN-59-R-8082. 3. In the front seat of the car, PW-1 was seated, in its back seat, PW-1's wife PW-2, their son Alagusundaram and their daughter PW-3 were seated. At about that time, a road accident took place. In this, the car and the Bus were involved. Subramaniya Raja and Alagusundaram have died on the spot. PWs-1 to 3 have sustained injuries (see Exs.P-11 to 13 Wound Certificates). 4. On the same day, PW-1 lodged Ex.P-1 complaint with PW-11, S.I. of Police, Velayathampalayam Police Station. He registered this case (see Ex.P-5 FIR). PW-12 Inspector investigated the case. PW-10, M.V. Inspector, inspected the Bus and the Car and gave Exs.P-3 and P-4 reports to the effect that there was no mechanical defect in both the vehicles. 5. It was the version of PWs-1 to 6 that the accused drove the Bus rashly and negligently and caused the accident. In his Final Report, PW- 11 alleged commission of offences under Sections 279, 337 (2 counts), 338 and 304-A IPC (2 counts) by the accused. 6. On his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating aspects in the prosecution evidence, the accused denied his complicity in this case and he did not let in any evidence. 7. Appreciating the said evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur convicted and sentenced the accused as detailed below:- S.No. Conviction Sentence 1 Section 337 IPC (2 counts) Rs.300, i/d, 1 month S.I for each count. 2 Section 338 IPC Rs.900, i/d, 1 month S.I 3 Section 304-A IPC (2 counts) 1 year S.I for each count. 4 Section 279 IPC No separate sentence has been imposed 8. Aggrieved, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.18 of 2007 before the learned Sessions Judge, Karur. After hearing both sides and perusing the case-records, the Appellate Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. 9. 4 Section 279 IPC No separate sentence has been imposed 8. Aggrieved, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.18 of 2007 before the learned Sessions Judge, Karur. After hearing both sides and perusing the case-records, the Appellate Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. 9. As against the said conviction and sentence, as stated at the outset, the accused has directed this revision. 10. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and that has resulted in erroneous decision being rendered. The error is apparent on the face of the record and it is required to be corrected. 11. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that to convict the revision petitioner it must be established beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. Only thereafter he could be punished. However, in this case, it was not so established. 12. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that to fasten negligence on the part of the revision petitioner, prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PWs-1 to 6. But a close scrutiny of their evidence would not so that then the bus driver was negligent. 13. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that there is material variation in the evidence of PW-1 and his complaint Ex.P-1 with regard to the manner of accident. In his cross- examination, PW-1 admits that he did not know how the accident took place. PW-2 introduced a new version that at the time of accident, the bus had overtaken another vehicle went ahead of it. Except saying that the bus came fast, PW-3 did not say anything corroborating the evidence of PWs-1 and 2. The cross-examination of PW-4 reveal that he is an hearsay witness. 14. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that the evidence of PW-5 would show that he and PW-6 have not witnessed the actual manner of accident. To lend credence to their evidence any one of the bus passengers has not been examined. PW-6 had given altogether a different direction as to this road accident. 15. 14. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that the evidence of PW-5 would show that he and PW-6 have not witnessed the actual manner of accident. To lend credence to their evidence any one of the bus passengers has not been examined. PW-6 had given altogether a different direction as to this road accident. 15. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner also contended that the evidence of witnesses shows that after the accident, the car was found on the Southern side of the road and that would show that the accident was not because of the bus driver. 16. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner also contended that PW-10, M.V. Inspector had found the right hand front side and back side of the car tires were punctured and he did not rule out the possibility of the accident having been taken place because of that. 17. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the above aspects. They have overlooked these aspects and that had resulted in rendering a perverse finding. 18. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that both the Courts have rightly appreciated the evidence. The evidence of material witnesses clearly disclose that the bus driver came driven the bus very rashly and negligently and caused the accident. Both the Courts have rightly recorded the finding and accordingly punished him. Thus, no interference is called for. 19. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned judgments and the entire materials on record. 20. As against the judgment of a Criminal Court, a criminal appeal lies to the next Court. As in civil cases, there is no second appeal in criminal cases. However, under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., a revision also lies to this Court on limited grounds as against the judgment rendered by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court. 21. As in civil cases, there is no second appeal in criminal cases. However, under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., a revision also lies to this Court on limited grounds as against the judgment rendered by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court. 21. In this connection, it is profitable to note the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander { 2012 (9) SCC 460 } :- “Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of them bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. Revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.” “Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be a sufficient ground for interference in such cases.” “The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Though Section 397 Cr.P.C., does not specifically use the expression “prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”, the jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C., is a very limited one. Though Section 397 Cr.P.C., does not specifically use the expression “prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”, the jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C., is a very limited one. The legality, propriety or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C., but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily.” 22. Now in the facts and circumstances of the case, we have to see whether the findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse calling for our interference. 23. The offences alleged against the revision petitioner are under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. Driving a vehicle rashly and negligently endangering human life or likely to cause injury to any person is an offence under Section 279 IPC; Causing death of a person by doing a rash or negligent act is punishable under Section 304-A IPC; Causing simple hurt to a person by doing an act rashly or negligently endangering human life is punishable under Section 337 IPC; and if the injury is grievous in nature, it is punishable under Section 338 IPC. Thus, the central focus of these offences is doing an act in a rash or negligent manner. 24. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to establish that at the time of accident, the revision petitioner came driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. It is more concerned with the manner of accident. This aspect must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. 25. In the instant case, the accident took place on 20.1.2003 at about 2.15 a.m. The place of occurrence is Salem-Karur National Highway. At about that time, the car was driven by deceased Subramaniya Raja, in the front seat PW-1 was seated and in the rear seat, another deceased Alagusundaram, PWs-2 and 3 were seated. 26. The bus was came driven by the accused. The car came from Salem side and it was proceeding towards Madurai, while the bus came from Madurai and was proceeding towards Salem side. 26. The bus was came driven by the accused. The car came from Salem side and it was proceeding towards Madurai, while the bus came from Madurai and was proceeding towards Salem side. Thus, both the vehicles came in the opposite direction, but came driven on the separate portion of the road meant for the particular direction. 27. There was an incident of road accident. On the evidence, it has to be decided whether there is any rashness and negligence on the part of the accused in driving the bus. To appreciate this, the manner of road accident is to be found out. It is not a matter of assumption, but it is a matter of proof beyond all reasonable doubts. On this aspect, the prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of PWs-1 to 6. 28. PW-1 is an eye-witness-cum-injured-cum-complainant. There is variation as to the manner of accident mentioned by him in his Ex.P-1 complaint and also in his evidence. Further, in his cross-examination, he would admit that he did not know how the road accident had taken place. On the other hand, his wife, PW-2 would say that at the time of accident, the Government bus tried to overtake another vehicle went ahead of it. This is not mentioned in the FIR nor stated in the evidence of PW-1. 29. PWs-1 and 2's daughter PW-3 stated that the bus came driven fastly. There is inconsistency in her evidence and in the evidence of her parents. PW-4 is a casual witness. He had stated that the car overtook him and the bus came from the opposite side dashed against the car. In his cross- examination, PW-4 admits that before he could come to the accident spot, the accident had already taken place and he also admits that he did not know on account of whose fault the accident had taken place. So as regards the manner of accident his evidence is also not helpful. 30. At about that time, PW-5 who came in an Ambassador car driven by PW-6. PW-5 had stated that the bus came driven fastly and he tried to fasten negligence on the part of the bus driver. However, he admits that when he went near the accident spot, except few bus passengers none were present. However, anyone of them were not examined. His evidence is not clear as to the manner of accident. PW-5 had stated that the bus came driven fastly and he tried to fasten negligence on the part of the bus driver. However, he admits that when he went near the accident spot, except few bus passengers none were present. However, anyone of them were not examined. His evidence is not clear as to the manner of accident. PW-6 completely changed the direction of the road and the direction in which the accident took place. Their evidence is also not helpful as to the manner of accident. 31. From the evidence of the Investigation Officer/PW-12, Ex.P-6, topography of the scene place and also the evidence of ocular witnesses, after the accident, the car went off the road and was found on the Southern side of the road nullifying the prosecution version of the case as to this road accident. This aspect has not been properly noticed by both the Courts below. 32. PW-10, M.V. Inspector, on examination of the car, found its car tires were punctured and he did not rule out the possibility of the road accident having been taken place because of that. This aspect also has been overlooked by both the Courts below. 33. From the analysis of the evidence on record, it is clear that certain aspects in the prosecution evidence has been completely overlooked by both the Courts below. They have failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. This has resulted in rendering erroneous finding and it is perverse and it suffers from legality and propriety. Thus it calls for our interference. 34. In view of the foregoings, it is ordered as under:- (i) This Criminal Revision is allowed; (ii) The conviction recorded and the sentence imposed upon the revision petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur in C.C.No.1046 of 2004 and the learned Sessions Judge, Karur in C.A.No.18 of 2007 are set aside; (iii) The revision petitioner is acquitted under Sections 279, 337 (2 counts), 338 and 304-A (2 counts) IPC; (iv) Fine amount, if paid already, shall be refunded to the revision petitioner.