JUDGMENT : G. Jayachandran, J. This Criminal Revision case is filed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District in C.C.No.168 of 2007, dated 10.01.2011 which has been subsequently confirmed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District in C.A.No.8 of 2011, vide judgment dated 04.12.2012 and set aside the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the respondent. 3. This revision case is directed against the concurrent finding of the Courts below, convicting the revision petitioner herein for offence under Section 304-A (2 counts), sentencing to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for each count. 4. The facts of the case is that on 15.03.2006 at about 7.00 a.m. at Kumbakonam - Chennai main road at Nachiyarkoil Village near Manicka Nachiyar temple, a Tata Indica Car bearing TN-49-1415 came rashly and negligently from north to south and hit one Manickam and Chellammal, causing fatal injury and stopped after hitting the platform, 10 feet away from the accident spot. 5. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and 9 exhibits. P.W.1 is the son of deceased Manickam. According to his evidence, his father, while collecting water from the nearby tap, the offending car came rashly, hit his father Manickam as well as a lady by name Chellammal and dashed against a statute of a temple. Both Manickam and Chellammal died on their way to hospital. P.W.2 and P.W.4 have seen the occurrence. Based on the complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police-P.W.10 has registered a case and investigated the matter. 6. The trial court, after considering the eye witnesses as well as the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector (marked as Ex.P.3) had held that the accused has driven the car rashly and negligently causing death of two persons. On appeal, the appellate court has confirmed the conviction and sentence. 7. The trial court had heavily relied upon Ex.P.3, the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector (P.W.8), wherein, he has certified that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report and his deposition. 7. The trial court had heavily relied upon Ex.P.3, the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector (P.W.8), wherein, he has certified that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report and his deposition. While the Inspection report reveals that the right front side tyre was found burst and steering wheel found broken, the courts below ought to have held that due to sudden burst of the front tyre, the driver has lost his control. The accident has occurred not due to the negligence of the accused or due to the rashness of the accused, but purely due to the act of God. On this point, the counsel would submit that the Courts below have erred in appreciating the evidence in proper perspective. Hence, the judgment of the Courts below needs interference. 9. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the eye witnesses namely P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 have spoken about the rash driving of the accused. The sketch prepared in respect of scene of occurrence indicate that the accused should have shown enough diligence, while negotiating the curve. Having failed to do so, the omission to show enough diligence is leading to culpable negligence. Even if the tyre had burst, as pointed out by the accused, the driver should have halted the vehicle. The evidence of the prosecution proves that after hitting Manickam, the accused has continued to proceed and the vehicle was halted only after hitting Chellammal and a statute. Thus, it can be seen from the Observation Mahazar that the accused has not attempted to stop his vehicle, at least immediately after dashing Manickam. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side). 11. Ex.P.3-Report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Neduncheziya Pandian, examined as P.W.8 is a crucial piece of evidence for the Court to find out whether there was negligence on the part of the accused or the accident was due to the sudden burst of the right side front tyre. The Motor Vehicle Inspector in his report-Ex.P3 has pointed out the following damages sustained by the offending vehicle. "(i) Front wind screen glass, right side front bumper broken damaged. (ii) Engine bonnet, right side cowl, right side front wheel mudguard dented & damaged. The Motor Vehicle Inspector in his report-Ex.P3 has pointed out the following damages sustained by the offending vehicle. "(i) Front wind screen glass, right side front bumper broken damaged. (ii) Engine bonnet, right side cowl, right side front wheel mudguard dented & damaged. (iii) Right side front tyre burst & damaged. (iv) Right side front wheel disk bend. (v) Right side both door dented & damaged. (vi) Right side wheel steering links cut damaged. (vii) Left side first door dented." 12. P.W.8 has deposed about his observation of the vehicle in his report-Ex.P.3. But, he has not been cross examined to suggest that the accident could have occurred due to sudden burst of the front tyre, due to which, the driver could have lost his control over the steering. 13. The courts below, after taking into consideration of the evidence of P.W.8, had concluded that when no mechanical fault has been found in the vehicle, the cause of accident is solely due to the negligence of the accused. The Motor Vehicle Inspector's report indicates that burst of front right side tyre as well as right side wheel steering links cut and damaged. While P.W.1 Jeyaraman who is witness to the occurrence and also son of Manickam, one of the victim in the accident, had deposed that the car which came from Chennai on the left side, all of a sudden turned to right and hit his father and one Challemmal and stopped, after hitting a statute and the platform. The sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer also supports his version. On a cumulative assessment of the evidence of P.W.1, rough sketch and the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, it appears that the car which was on the left side, has suddenly turned to right and hit two persons and stopped after moving 10 feet. The sudden change in direction might have occurred due to the burst of the front tyre leading to loss of control by the driver. Hence, the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused. The trial court as well the appellate court had not properly appreciated these evidence in a proper perspective. Hence, the judgment and decree of the courts below require interference. 14. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the courts below are set aside and this criminal Revision Case is allowed. Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner/accused. The trial court as well the appellate court had not properly appreciated these evidence in a proper perspective. Hence, the judgment and decree of the courts below require interference. 14. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the courts below are set aside and this criminal Revision Case is allowed. Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner/accused. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2013 is closed.