ORDER : The revision petitioner herein is an accused in C.C.No.187 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Udumalpet, and he was convicted by the learned Magistrate for an offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. As against the said conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner herein/accused had preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.43 of 2013 and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, dismissed the said appeal confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Challenging the said order, the accused had preferred the above Criminal Revision Case before this Court. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.05.2009 at about 5.00 p.m., in the road towards Alamarathur, the deceased namely, Nataraj was coming in front of the house of one Rajendran in a TVS XL Super bearing Registration No.TN-41-V-5054 from West to East. At that time, in the opposite direction, the accused has driven his Eicher van bearing Registration No.TN-43-Z-3737 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Nataraj and as a result of which, the deceased had sustained severe head injury and died due to the injury and hence, the respondent police has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC. 4. The suggestive case of the defence is that the alleged occurrence has taken place due to the act of the victim/deceased in coming from the side road and dashed against the door of the van driven by the accused and hence, the deceased being the cause for the accident, the accused pleaded innocent. 5. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. When the accused was questioned regarding the offence, he pleaded not guilty. On the side of the accused, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 6. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, have convicted and sentenced the accused as already stated above. Aggrieved against the said concurrent judgments of both the Courts below, the above criminal revision case is preferred by the accused before this Court. 7. 6. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, have convicted and sentenced the accused as already stated above. Aggrieved against the said concurrent judgments of both the Courts below, the above criminal revision case is preferred by the accused before this Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent. 8. Points for determination are [i] Whether the order of conviction is sustainable in law? [ii] Whether the sentence awarded is excessive? 9. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused would contend that there is a material contradiction between the oral evidence of P.W.1 with that of the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the suggestive case of the accused in proper manner and hence, the learned counsel seeks to set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by both the trial Court. 10. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) made submissions in support of the judgment of the trial Court. 11. According to the prosecution, on 08.05.2009 at about 5.00 p.m., while the deceased Nataraj was driving his two wheeler from West to East, the accused driven his vehicle from East to West and dashed against the deceased and caused the accident. P.W.1, who had lodged the complaint, set the criminal law into motion. 12. According to P.W.1-Paulraj, he was driving his two wheeler following the vehicle of the deceased Nataraj and at that time, the offending vehicle of the accused came in the opposite direction and dashed against the deceased. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 had stated that (IN OTHER LANGUAGE) 13. While the evidence of P.W.1-Paulraj being so, P.W.2-Sundar Raj, who is also projected as if he is an occurrence witness, deposed in the chief examination that he came in the opposite direction to that of the victim's vehicle and the accident has taken place due to the negligence on the part of the accused. However, in the cross-examination, with regard to the scene of crime, P.W.2 deposed that (IN OTHER LANGUAGE) It remains to be stated that P.W.2 had categorically answered in the cross-examination that (IN OTHER LANGUAGE) 14. However, in the cross-examination, with regard to the scene of crime, P.W.2 deposed that (IN OTHER LANGUAGE) It remains to be stated that P.W.2 had categorically answered in the cross-examination that (IN OTHER LANGUAGE) 14. Thus, on a combined reading of the answer elucidated in the cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it is seen that there is a material contradiction with regard to the presence of P.W.1 at the scene of occurrence. According to P.W.1, he was driving the vehicle in the same direction of the offending vehicle. However, the accused overtook his vehicle and dashed on the victim/deceased. When that being the case, the feasibility of the manner of the accident as spoken to by P.W.1, in the cross-examination, is found to be doubtful. P.W.2 has categorically stated that the accident has taken place in the curve in the nearby place. As per Ex.P.7-Rough Sketch, the curve clearly indicates a blind 's' turn and there is a junction cross road on its side. 15. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that the suggestive case of the defence is that the deceased came on the side road and dashed on the door of the van driven by the accused. In other words, after the vehicle of the accused crossed over the junction, the vehicle of the deceased, which came from the side road, dashed in the running vehicle of the accused on the main road in the door. The said version also stands corroborated by the motor vehicle inspector's report Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5. P.W.10-Murugesan, Motor Vehicle Inspector also deposed that the damage to the offending vehicle is only at the side door of the driver area and not in the front or in the front portion assumes significance. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that P.W.1-Paulraj was projected as an occurrence witness and P.W.2 and P.W.3 said to have been came to the scene of occurrence after the accident and P.W.5 and P.W.6 are the attestors of the mahazar while P.W.7 is the person, who conducted inquest and P.W.9-Dr.Kavitha, who had given initial treatment to the deceased and issued Ex.P.3-Post Mortem Certificate. At the risk of repetition but for the shake of clarity, the suggestive case of the accused is that the deceased drove the vehicle from a lane in the place to the main road and dashed against the van driven by the accused and the same appears to have been substantiated by the evidence of P.W.10/Motor Vehicle Inspector and his reports Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5. 16. As discussed supra, the prosecution projected P.W.1-Paulraj as an occurrence witness. As stated supra, P.W.2 has deposed at variates on the material particulars with regard to the manner of the accident. Besides P.W.12, Sub-Inspector of Police, who had laid the charge sheet, in her cross-examination, deposed that the witnesses Sundararaj and Saravanan have not deposed as to which part of the vehicle had dashed against each other. P.W.12 further stated that neither the witness P.W.2-Sundarraj and P.W.3-Saravanan deposed that P.W.1-Paulraj came from behind the offending vehicle driven by the accused and thus, this Court finds that the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the evidence of P.W.1 in this regard as to the manner of the accident taken place viz., the offending vehicle driven by the accused overtook his vehicle went ahead of him and dashed against the deceased is found to be material contradiction on material particulars as to the manner of the driving of the vehicle and dashing against the vehicle of the deceased. On facts of this case, this Court holds that such embellishment in the version of the alleged occurrence witness amounts to material contradiction, affecting the very prosecution theory. With regard to the scene of the crime, Ex.P.7-Rough Sketch and the evidence of P.W.2 would go to show that near the place of the accident, there was a side road and that was 'S' bend, and the accident has taken place also lents support to the suggestive case of the accused/revision petitioner. 17. On consideration of the material contradiction as demonstrated by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, material contradiction relating to the place of accident and manner of the accident as spoken to by P.W.1 is found to be at vital variation with the oral evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. 17. On consideration of the material contradiction as demonstrated by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, material contradiction relating to the place of accident and manner of the accident as spoken to by P.W.1 is found to be at vital variation with the oral evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. Besides, there is a material contradiction as to the manner of the driving of the vehicle by the accused before causing the accident and hence, both the Courts below have failed to note this material contradiction between the prosecution witness P.W.1 with that of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 which caused serious doubt as to the very presence of P.W.1 at the scene of crime at the time of the accident. On the contra, from Ex.P.7-Rough Sketch and Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5-Report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector and from the evidence of P.W.10 coupled with the answer elucidated in the cross-examination of P.W.2 regarding the place of the crime and the impact caused by the vehicle of the deceased on the vehicle of the accused goes to show that the same substantiated the suggestive case as probable. In the criminal proceedings, the standard of proof which required to be established by the prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt. At the same time, the standard of proof that is required for a suggestive case is that of the preponderance of probabilities. 18. In the instant case, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has successfully demonstrated the material contradiction between the alleged occurrence witness P.W.1 with that of the evidence of P.W.2 on the material particulars, relating to the scene of crime and the manner of the driving of the vehicle by both the parties, viz., the accused and the deceased. Further, in view of the answer elucidated in the cross-examination of P.W.2, the presence of P.W.1 at the time of the accident at the scene of the crime itself is found to be doubtful. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its theory beyond reasonable doubt. 19. On the contrary, the defence has successfully demonstrated the preponderance of probabilities of the suggestive case making that the suggestive case is probable and hence, the benefit of doubt shall goes to the accused. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its theory beyond reasonable doubt. 19. On the contrary, the defence has successfully demonstrated the preponderance of probabilities of the suggestive case making that the suggestive case is probable and hence, the benefit of doubt shall goes to the accused. Both the Courts below have not taken note of the answer elucidated in the cross-examination of P.W.2 and P.W.3 with that of the evidence of P.W.1, the alleged occurrence witness relating to the scene of the crime and the manner of the accident and method of driving of the vehicle. In this view of the matter, this Court comes to a conclusion that the prosecution theory is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and in view of the existence of the material contradiction in respect of the manner of driving of the vehicle, the presence of P.W.2 at scene of occurrence is doubtful. The case of the prosecution has not passed the test beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused and while the suggestive case found to be probable. 20. In view of the discussions in the preceding paragraphs, this Court is of the considered view that the order of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below on the accused is not sustainable in law and the same needs interference by this Court. 21. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below are set aside, the revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the charges. The bail bond executed by the revision petitioner/accused shall stand cancelled forthwith and the fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to him.