JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Tuticorin, in C.A.No.38 of 2007, dated 04.02.2008. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.12.2005 at about 11 a.m. in between Kuruvinatham junction on Salnayakkanpatti-Pasuvanthanai main road, while Annamuthu (PW2) riding his M-80 two wheeler TN-69-Z-3289 along with his two daughters as pillion riders, at the time, the accused drove the Hero Honda TN-69-J-8831 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against M80 two wheeler. In that process, Annamuthu and his elder daughter Pechiammal (PW4) sustained simple injuries all over the body, while his younger daughter Chinna Pechiammal sustained grievous injuries and thereafter she succumbed to injuries. The Inspector of Police, attached to Koppam Patti Police Station filed a final report under Section 279, 337 (2 counts) and 304(A) IPC against the accused examining the witnesses. 3. In the trial court, 14 witnesses were examined, 10 Exhibits and MOs1 to 6 were marked. When the accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstances, he denied the same. The trial court convicted the revision petitioner/sole accused for the offence under Section 279 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer 3 months of SI; convicted under Section 337 (2 counts) and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- for each count, in default to suffer SI for 3 months and also convicted under Section 304(A) IPC and sentenced him to suffer 6 months of RI and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer 3 months of SI. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the revision petitioner filed an appeal in C.A.No.38 of 2007, which was heard by the Additional District Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Tuticorin. The first appellate Court modified the sentence in respect of offence under Section 304(A) IPC into 3 months of RI and confirmed the findings of the trial court in other aspects. Hence, this criminal revision. 4. The first appellate Court modified the sentence in respect of offence under Section 304(A) IPC into 3 months of RI and confirmed the findings of the trial court in other aspects. Hence, this criminal revision. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients required for all the offences with which he stood charged and convicted him for the said offences and none of the witnesses have spoken that the accused has driven the vehicle either rashly or negligently and there is no specific allegation of negligence as against the accused in driving the offending vehicle and there is no direct cause in between the rash and negligent act of the accused and the death of the deceased and the eye witnesses are interested witnesses and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to acquittal and prays that the criminal revision may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent/State submitted that both the courts below appreciated the evidence in a proper manner and believed the evidence of the eye witnesses and having regard to the nature of the offences, convicted the revision petitioner for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and passed proper sentence, which does not require any interference by this court and the accused is not entitled for acquittal and prays that the criminal revision petition may be dismissed. 6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. In this case, PW1 is the complainant and he gave Ex.P1 complaint. PW1 in his complaint has stated that on 10.12.2005, PW2 took his two daughters in his two wheeler to the hospital and drove his vehicle on the left side, proceeding from south to north and at the time, a Hero Honda motor cycle, which was coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his vehicle and due to which, he and his two daughters sustained injuries and PW1 gave Ex.P1 complaint. 8. PW1 during his evidence stated that the driver of the offending vehicle drove his vehicle in a speedy manner and dashed against the vehicle, in which the injured and the deceased travelled. 8. PW1 during his evidence stated that the driver of the offending vehicle drove his vehicle in a speedy manner and dashed against the vehicle, in which the injured and the deceased travelled. But PW1 has not stated that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 9. It is seen from the records that PW2 riding his vehicle along with his two daughters. Two wheeler is designed to travel two persons only. Three persons travelled in a two wheeler is against the Motor Vehicles Act. 10. PW1 during his cross examination has stated that :- “LANGUAGE” 11. Hence, from the perusal of the evidence of PW1, it reveals that the accident had also taken place due to the negligence on the part of PW2, who is the injured person. 12. PW2 during his evidence stated that on 11.12.2005 at 10.30 a.m., when he took his two daughters in his two wheeler and proceeding to hospital at Koppam Pettai from south to north, at the time, the driver of the offending vehicle dashed against his vehicle in a speedy manner, due to which, he and his two daughters sustained injuries. PW2 has not stated that during his evidence that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 13. It is to be noted here that PW2 in his vehicle travelled with two persons. It is settled that in a two wheeler only two persons are permitted to travel. In the case on hand, PW2 riding his two wheeler with two persons in addition to him. Hence, it is against the Motor Vehicles Act. 14. At this juncture, it is relevent to extract the cross examination of PW2, which would run thus:- “LANGUAGE” 15. It is mainly argued on the side of the revision petitioner/accused that the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not proved the rash and negligent driving of the accused and there are contradictions between the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and there can be no general presumption that a person should have driven a vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, merely because there was an accident. 16. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the decision of this Court reported in 2017-1-LW.(Crl.)160 (M. Subramani Vs. State rep. 16. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the decision of this Court reported in 2017-1-LW.(Crl.)160 (M. Subramani Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police, Edapadi Police Station, Salem District), wherein this court has held as follows:- “19. In State of Karnataka vs. Sathish (1998)8 SCC 493 ), in a road accident where the accused was prosecuted under Section 304-A IPC, one of the witness had stated that the bus drive came driven the bus at a high speed. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that it would not satisfy the requirement of the driver driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as required under Section 304-A IPC and acquitted the accused.” 20. In this respect, the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SATISH (supra) are relevant here to note:- 3. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court held the respondent guilty for offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A IPC after recording a finding that the respondent was driving the truck at a "high speed". No specific finding has been recorded either by the Trial Court or by the First Appellate Court to the effect that the respondent was driving the truck either negligently or rashly. After holding that the respondent was driving the truck at a "high speed", both the Courts pressed into aid the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to hold the respondent guilty. 4. Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur". There is evidence to show that immediately before the truck turned turtle, there was a big jerk. It is not explained as to whether the jerk was because of the uneven road or mechanical failure. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle had submitted his report. That report is not forthcoming from the record and the Inspector was not examined for reasons best known to the prosecution. This is a serious infirmity and lacuna in the prosecution case. 21. Subsequently, in Abdul Subhan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) {2007 Cri.L.J. 1089}, in a road accident case for an offence under Section 304-A IPC, the only available evidence of an Head Constable is that the bus driver had driven the bus fastly. The Delhi High Court relying on the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in SATISH (supra) held that the bus driver cannot be held to have drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. 22. In State vs. Avadh Kishore {Crl.L.P. No.213 of 2007 dated 30.1.2009 (Delhi High Court)}, the Delhi High Court reiterated its earlier view in ABDUL SUBHAN (supra). 23. Recently in Puttaiah @ Mahesh vs. State by Rural Police {Crl. Review Petition No.1317 of 2010 dated 4.3.2016 (Karnataka High Court)}, the Karnataka High Court held as under: “In this view of the matter, both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have not assessed the oral and documentary evidence in right perspective. Both the Courts should have navigated through the evidence of material witnesses cautiously. Glaring inconsistencies have been brushed aside as minor variations. They have adopted wrong approach to the real state of affairs and have not properly scanned the evidence. Both the Courts have forgotten that the initial burden was on the prosecution to establish the charge of rashness or negligence beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the judgments of both the Courts suffer from perversity and illegality. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the revision petition is to be allowed.” 17. Both the Courts have forgotten that the initial burden was on the prosecution to establish the charge of rashness or negligence beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the judgments of both the Courts suffer from perversity and illegality. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the revision petition is to be allowed.” 17. On coming to the instant case on hand, the prosecution witnesses have not stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. 18. For all the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. 19. In the result, this Criminal Revision is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence are set aside. The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The bail bond if any executed by him shall stand cancelled and the fine amount if any paid by him shall be refunded to him.