ORDER : Challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram in C.A. No. 25 of 2008, dated 28.11.2008, confirming the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, No. I, Ramanathapuram, dated 09.06.2008 made in C.C.No.138 of 2006, the present revision case has been filed. 2. The petitioner is sole accused in C.C.No.138 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. I, Ramanathapuram. The trial court convicted the petitioner for an offence under Section 304(A) I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Challenging the same, an appeal has been filed. The lower appellate court also confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Now, challenging the same, the present revision has been filed. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (i) The deceased in this case is one Balamani, a 13 years old boy, who is the son of P.Ws.1 & 2. On 23.04.2006, at about 11.00 a.m., when the deceased along with P.W.2-his mother and P.W.3-his brother were returning to house, after consulting a doctor, the deceased was riding a bi-cycle. At that time, a mini-bus driven by the accused came in the opposite direction. Since there was a heap of sand kept on the road side, the deceased got down from the cycle and was standing there. At that time, the mini-bus dashed against the deceased and caused severe injuries. Immediately, he was taken to hospital, where, he died. Then P.W.1-father of the deceased gave a complaint. (ii) Based on the complaint, P.W.8-Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Bazaar Police Station, Ramanathapuram, registered a case in Cr.No.149 of 2006 under Section 304(A) I.P.C and prepared the first information report. P.W.9- Inspector of Police conducted the investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.3) and a Rough Sketch (Ex.P.7) in the presence of P.W.5-Krishnamoorthy and one Santhi. Then, he went to the Government hospital, Ramanathapuram and conducted inquest on the dead body and prepared Inquest Report (Ex.P.8). Then, he enquired the other witnesses and recorded their statements. Then, he handed over the dead body to P.W.6-doctor. (iii) P.W.6-doctor, conducted post mortem autopsy, gave an opinion that the deceased would have died, due to head injuries. Then, he went to the Government hospital, Ramanathapuram and conducted inquest on the dead body and prepared Inquest Report (Ex.P.8). Then, he enquired the other witnesses and recorded their statements. Then, he handed over the dead body to P.W.6-doctor. (iii) P.W.6-doctor, conducted post mortem autopsy, gave an opinion that the deceased would have died, due to head injuries. Then, the vehicle, which caused the accident was sent for inspection by P.W.7-Motor Vehicle Inspector. He inspected the mini bus and given a report-Ex.P.5 stating that there is no damage and no mechanical fault in the vehicle. P.W.9, then recorded the statements of post mortem doctor and the Motor Vehicle Inspector. After completing the investigation, he filed a final report against the petitioner/accused under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. 4. Based on the materials available on record, the trial Court framed charges, as detailed in the second paragraph of this order. On the side of the prosecution, in order to prove its case, as many as 9 witnesses were examined and 8 documents were exhibited. 5. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the father of the deceased Balamani. According to him, after hearing the news of death of his son, he went to the scene of occurrence. P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased. According to her, she and P.W.3 went along with the deceased to meet a doctor and while returning to house, the deceased was riding a bi-cycle. At that time, the vehicle, driven by the accused came in the opposite direction. Since there was a heap of sand kept in the road, the deceased got down from the cycle and the mini-bus dashed against him and caused his death. P.W3 is the brother of the deceased. He also reiterated the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.4 is another witness to the occurrence. According to him, while the deceased was standing near a heap of sand, the mini-bus crossed a tractor and at that time, it dashed against the deceased. Then, he took the deceased to the hospital, where he died. P.W.5 is the witness to the Observation Mahazar. P.W.6 is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem autopsy and he gave a post mortem report (Ex.P.4) stating that the death was caused due to head injuries. P.W.7-Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the vehicle and gave a report stating that there is no damage and mechanical fault in the vehicle. P.W.5 is the witness to the Observation Mahazar. P.W.6 is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem autopsy and he gave a post mortem report (Ex.P.4) stating that the death was caused due to head injuries. P.W.7-Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the vehicle and gave a report stating that there is no damage and mechanical fault in the vehicle. P.W.8 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the F.I.R. P.W.9 is the Inspector of Police, who conducted the investigation and filed a final report. 6. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, he denied the same. However, the accused neither examined any evidence nor marked any documents. After considering all the materials available on record, the trial court convicted the accused. Challenging the order of the trial court, an appeal has been filed before the appellate court. That appeal was also dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed. 7. I have heard Ms. Akila, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. C. Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 are eye witnesses to the occurrence. Out of which, P.Ws.2 and 3 are interested witnesses viz., mother and brother of the deceased. Even from their evidence, there is no material to show that the petitioner has driven the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. In the absence of any evidence to show that the accused has driven the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, the court below convicted the petitioner. Apart from that, there are lot of contradictions in the evidence of the eye witnesses and from their evidence, it cannot be concluded that due to the negligence of the petitioner, the accident has taken place. 9. Per Contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent contended that there are three eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the mother and brother, who accompanied the deceased. P.W.4, an independent witness has stated that the mini-bus has dashed the petitioner and caused his death. Merely because P.Ws.2 and 3 are interested witnesses, it cannot be stated that their evidence is not trustworthy and it is liable to be rejected. Both the courts below, after considering the entire materials available on record, has rightly convicted the petitioner. P.W.4, an independent witness has stated that the mini-bus has dashed the petitioner and caused his death. Merely because P.Ws.2 and 3 are interested witnesses, it cannot be stated that their evidence is not trustworthy and it is liable to be rejected. Both the courts below, after considering the entire materials available on record, has rightly convicted the petitioner. Hence, no interference is required at the hands of this court. 10. I have considered the rival submissions. 11. Admittedly, P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 are eye witnesses. Out of which, P.Ws.2 and 3 are the mother and brother of the deceased and at the time of accident, they said to have accompanied the deceased and they took the deceased to a doctor, immediately after the accident. P.W.4 is an independent witness, also present in the scene of occurrence. From the perusal of their evidence, none of them has stated that the deceased has driven the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Their consistent evidence is that when the deceased was riding the bi-cycle, the above vehicle came in the opposite direction, a heap of sand was kept in the road, then the deceased got down from the bi-cycle and stood there and at that time, the offending vehicle dashed against the deceased and caused his death. It is also the evidence of P.W.4 that at the time of accident, there was another tractor came in the opposite direction and while giving way to the tractor, the mini-bus has dashed against the deceased. None of the eye witnesses has stated that the accused has driven the mini-bus in rash and negligent manner, which is a condition precedent for convicting a person under Section 304(A) I.P.C. From the evidence of prosecution, there is no material available on record to show that the petitioner has driven the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt that the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Without considering the said evidence properly, the courts below, have convicted and sentenced the petitioner. Hence, in view of the above, the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside. 12. Without considering the said evidence properly, the courts below, have convicted and sentenced the petitioner. Hence, in view of the above, the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside. 12. In fine, this criminal revision case is allowed. The conviction and sentence, passed by the courts below are set aside and the petitioner/accused is acquitted from the charges. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P(MD). No. 6471 of 2017 is closed.