ORDER : Vijay Kumar Vyas, J. 1. This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.6.2005 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jhalawar in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2005 upholding the judgment dated 4.7.2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar in Cr. Case No. 155/93 (592/86) whereby revisionist was convicted and sentenced as follows:- U/s 337 IPC - Six months' Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment thereof, to further undergo fifteen days rigorous imprisonment. U/s 338 IPC - One year's Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment thereof, to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. U/s 304-A IPC - Two years' Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-; in default of payment thereof, to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the case are that on 22.5.1986 at about 2.30 AM, Onkar Lal (PW-5) informed about the incident to Hikmattula (PW-21) ASI of Police Station Asnavad, at SRG hospital Jhalawar that yesterday at about 3-4 O’clock when he was taking Barat of his son Shyam in a tractor trolley owned by Gajanand Meena, R/o Bhatwasi to village Khandiya, at about 7 O’clock in the evening between Munderi and Mundawar, near Gagron road, the driver of the tractor whose name he does not remember, was driving with fast speed and negligently, resulting thereby the trolley of the tractor turned up side down and about 25-30 persons - men, women and children, who were sitting in the trolley came under the trolley and almost all the persons got injured. One Bhairu Lal Bheel died at the spot, whereas another Rakesh died later on. Tractor trolley is lying on the spot. Tractor was bearing No. RJ-3129. Tractor was driven upto Mandawar by Ram Karan Meena. Thereafter, other person was driving the tractor. Due to his rash and negligent driving, the accident occurred. He does not remember the name of the driver. ASI Shri Hikmattula (PW-21) recorded this information on Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-2). On the basis of it, regular FIR No. 35/1986 (Ex.P-38) was registered. After investigation, a charge sheet against the revisionist petitioner was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar. The case was later on transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar. ASI Shri Hikmattula (PW-21) recorded this information on Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-2). On the basis of it, regular FIR No. 35/1986 (Ex.P-38) was registered. After investigation, a charge sheet against the revisionist petitioner was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar. The case was later on transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar. Substance of accusation for offence punishable u/s 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC were read over to the revisionist. He denied the accusations and claimed trial. Prosecution examined 21 witnesses and exhibited 45 documents. The revisionist was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He has stated that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is wrong. Witnesses are telling lie due to enmity. He was not driving the tractor at the time of accident, rather Hemraj was driving it. Three documents were exhibited but no oral witness had been examined in defence. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court vide judgment dated 4.7.2000 convicted and sentenced the revisionist, as aforesaid. On appeal, after hearing both the parties, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jhalawar vide judgment dated 30.6.2005 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the trial court. 3. Learned counsel, Shri Jaswant Singh Rathore appearing on behalf of senior counsel Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar submit that the impugned judgments passed by both the courts below are illegal, arbitrary, against the facts of the case and evidence available on record. Learned counsel submits that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in perfect manner. They overlooked the material fact that at the time of accident, tractor was not being driven by the present revisionist petitioner but some other person. This fact was pointed out by the author of FIR himself in Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-5), which is basis, whereupon whole edifice of the prosecution rests. Even the prosecution witnesses, who are said to be eye witnesses, have corroborated this fact. Madan Lal (PW-1) Shyam Bihari (PW-2), Kamla Bai W/o Shri Bhanwar Lal (PW-3), Kanwar Lal (PW-4), Dwarika Lal (PW-12), Ram Vilas (PW-13) and Rameshwar (PW-14), all of them have not supported the prosecution that Ram Karan was driving the tractor at the time of accident. 4. Madan Lal (PW-1) Shyam Bihari (PW-2), Kamla Bai W/o Shri Bhanwar Lal (PW-3), Kanwar Lal (PW-4), Dwarika Lal (PW-12), Ram Vilas (PW-13) and Rameshwar (PW-14), all of them have not supported the prosecution that Ram Karan was driving the tractor at the time of accident. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the prosecution witnesses have stated that the tractor was being driven by Ram Karan but at the time of accident, it was being driven by some other person. Possibility cannot be ruled out that the person who was not having valid driving licence was driving the vehicle and to cover this lapse, the present petitioner has been implicated. This fact is supported by Ram Nath (PW-11), Dwarika Lal (PW-12) and Rameshwar (PW-14). 5. The learned trial court has appreciated the evidence adduced before it in discriminate manner. The witnesses who name the revisionist as driver, have been believed and without any rhyme or reason, the witnesses who stated in favour of the revisionist have not been believed. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor Shri Anil Yadav submit that the learned trial court has disbelieved the testimony of Onkar Lal (PW-5), who was informant of the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-2) because of the contradictions in Parcha Bayan and his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. However, on the basis of evidence rendered by other eye witnesses, the revisionist was held convict. Eye witnesses, who turned hostile, have rightly been disbelieved and reasons of their turning hostile have been duly appreciated and given weightage by the learned trial court. There is nothing on record so as to invoke power vested u/s 397 Cr.P.C. by this court. 7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the whole material available on record. 8. Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-2) is the foundation of building of the prosecution. In this document, in a clear term, it has been recorded in ‘A to B’ part that tractor was being driven by Ram Karan upto Mandwar village but thereafter it was being driven by some other person with fast speed and negligence and the accident was caused thereby. Name of that person is not remembered by the informant. Madan Lal (PW-1) has stated that the tractor was of Ram Karan Meena, R/o Borda but who was driving, he does not know. Ram Nath (PW-11) has corroborated ‘A to B’ part of Parcha Bayan (Ex.P.2). Name of that person is not remembered by the informant. Madan Lal (PW-1) has stated that the tractor was of Ram Karan Meena, R/o Borda but who was driving, he does not know. Ram Nath (PW-11) has corroborated ‘A to B’ part of Parcha Bayan (Ex.P.2). He has turned hostile. Kamla Bai (PW-3) and Kanwar Lal (PW-4) have stated in examination in chief that tractor was being driven by Ram Karan and he caused the tractor met with an accident. But in cross examination, she states that when she gave statement to police, she was not knowing who was driver of the tractor because she was sitting in the trolley at a distant behind. By this statement, it reveals that whatever she is stating, is heresay evidence. Dwarka Lal (PW-12), and Ram Vilas (PW-13) and Rameshswar (PW-14) state that they do not know the name of driver of the tractor. They have turned hostile. Ram Karan (PW-20), owner of the tractor, has stated that tractor bearing No. RJ-3129 and trolley No. 3133 RJ were purchased by him. He had sold the tractor and trolley to Gajanand. He is still in the record owner of the tractor and trolley. Hem Raj used to drive this tractor. This witness has turned hostile. 9. So far as other eye witnesses examined by prosecution are concerned, Shyam Bihari (PW-2) has stated in examination in chief that tractor belonged to Ram Karan and he himself was driving the tractor. But in cross examination, he admits that he did not give such statement to the police which were recorded in Ex. D-1 u/s 161 Cr.P.C. It means that the witness is improving his version in the court. Janki Lal (PW-8) has stated that tractor was being driven by accused Ram Karan, who is present in court. But in cross examination, he states that police did not record his statement. He does not remember, he was unconscious. Further he states that he did not give statement mentioned in Ex.D-2. On perusal of Ex.D-2 statement of Janki Lal recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., it reveals that in this statement, he has stated that he does not know the name of the driver. It means, this witness has also improved his version. Ramraj (PW-17) has stated that tractor was being driven by his owner but he does not know his name. On perusal of Ex.D-2 statement of Janki Lal recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., it reveals that in this statement, he has stated that he does not know the name of the driver. It means, this witness has also improved his version. Ramraj (PW-17) has stated that tractor was being driven by his owner but he does not know his name. Bhanwar Lal (PW-18) has also stated that tractor was being driven by a boy, he does not know him by name or by face. Nathi (PW-5), Lachhma Bai (PW-6), Dhanna Ram (PW-7) and Shyam Bihari (PW-16) have corroborated the prosecution and stated that at the time of accident the tractor was being driven by the revisionist Ram Karan. 10. So far as Onkar (PW-5) (inadvertently this witness has also been marked as PW-5) is concerned, he has stated in examination in chief that Ram Karan was driving the tractor trolley. He had given an information to police. Parcha Bayan was read over to him and on finding it correct, he had marked thumb impression on it. In cross examination, when he was confronted with ‘A to B’ part of Parcha Bayan (Ex. P-2), he states that he did not tell such thing to the police. Hikmattula (PW-21) is Investigating Officer of this case. In cross examination he has given an explanation that some eye witnesses had stated that they do not know the name of the tractor driver because they were all Barati. But this witness does not give any explanation why Onkar Lal (PW-5) informed him that at the time of accident, Ram Karan was not driving the tractor. Onkar Lal (PW-5) himself has not given any explanation as to why he has improved his version from his earlier information recorded in Paracha Bayan (PW-2). 11. On perusal of the evidence rendered by all the witnesses examined as eye witnesses, it reveals that there are two sets of evidence. One set of witnesses support the prosecution, whereas the other set of witnesses have categorically denied that revisionist was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. None of the witnesses, turned hostile or not, supporting the prosecution, have given explanation that on being Barati, driver was stranger for them. Therefore, the explanation given by Investigating Officer - Hikmattulla (PW-21), in cross examination seems to be without any basis. None of the witnesses, turned hostile or not, supporting the prosecution, have given explanation that on being Barati, driver was stranger for them. Therefore, the explanation given by Investigating Officer - Hikmattulla (PW-21), in cross examination seems to be without any basis. It is established law that from the evidence adduced before the court, if two stories are coming up, one is in favour of the accused and another is against him, then it is safer to give benefit of doubt to the accused and acquit him, rather then convicting him. 12. The instant revision has not been argued on any other point. Therefore, discussion on other aspects of the case is not required. 13. After discussed as above, I find that learned courts below, while scrutinising the evidence, have committed a mistake in appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, discriminately. In my view, it is a fit case wherein revisionist petitioner be given the benefit of doubt. 14. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. Judgment dated 4.7.2000 passed by the learned trial court and judgment dated 30.6.2005 passed by the learned appellate court i.e. Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jhalawar upholding the same, whereby the revisionist petitioner was convicted and sentenced for offences punishable u/s 337, 338 and 304-A IPC are set aside. The revisionist is acquitted of all the charges.