JUDGMENT : G. ILANGOVAN, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner on 11.11.2016 in C.A. No. 41/2015 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge at Tiruvarur, confirming the order dated 25.09.2015 made in C.C. No. 103/2014 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Nannilam. 2. The Accused/revision petitioner was charged under section 304-A IPC for having caused the death of one Divagar @ Dinesh by rash and negligent driving on the road of Thiruvaur to Mayiladurai on 21.07.2015 at about 9.30 a.m. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief: (i) On 21.07.2013, at about 9.30 a.m. the deceased after taking breakfast, was riding his by-cycle in the North-South road in North to south direction to the Sasikala Mill quarters in Vandampalayam to play Kabadi. At that time, two persons were riding a two wheeler in a drunken mood, dashed against the deceased and because of that the deceased sustained injuries on the head and died on the spot. This was witnessed by his father namely PW-1. (ii) Later, PW-1 lodged a complaint in the police station at Nannilam which was received by the then Inspector of police and the deceased was taken to the hospital for postmortem and case in Crime No. 173/2013 for the offence under Section 304 (A) IPC was registered. (iii) The then inspector of police by name Govindaraj took up the investigation, visited the place of occurrence, in the presence of the witness prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch, which are marked as Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.4. He recorded the statement of witnesses namely PWs. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and conducted inquest in the presence of witnesses upon the body of the deceased. The inquest report is marked as Ex.P.5. Later, postmortem was conducted by the Medical Officer and the report is marked as Ex.P.6. The offending vehicle was sent for Motor Vehicle Inspection, the report is marked as Ex.P.7. (iv) On 01.08.2017, at about 10.30 a.m. he arrested the accused and made arrangements for remanding him. He recorded the statement of the Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem. PW-6 took up the matter and conducted further investigation and re-examined all the witnesses and finally laid the charge sheet on 08.10.2014 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Nannilam. (v) PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. He recorded the statement of the Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem. PW-6 took up the matter and conducted further investigation and re-examined all the witnesses and finally laid the charge sheet on 08.10.2014 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Nannilam. (v) PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. She would state that the deceased was going to the place of occurrence for playing kabadi sports in Vandampalayam. He was accompanied by PW-1. After knowing the incident, she went to the place of occurrence and saw the body of her son lying in the place of occurrence. (vi) PW-3 witnessed the occurrence: He would say that the deceased after crossing the road, went to the ground where the kabadi sports was conducted and at the time, the accused in a rash and negligent manner drove his two wheeler and dashed against the deceased. At the time, the accused was found in possession of liquor and toddy bottles. The deceased was thrown to a nearby channel. PW-3 also witnessed the occurrence and stated that after the deceased crossed the road, the accused in a rash and negligent manner drove the two wheeler and dashed against the deceased and he was thrown away. He was also present in the place of occurrence when the Investigation Officer visited the place, prepared the Mahazar and Sketch. The Observation Mahazar is Ex.P.2. (vii) PW-4 and PW-5 also witnessed the occurrence: They also said that the deceased was hit by the accused, who was driving his two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner after the deceased crossed the road. They informed the ambulance and the deceased was taken to the hospital. They were also present in the place of occurrence when the Investigating Officer visited and prepared Sketch and Mahazar. (viii) When the prosecution evidences were closed and the accused was put under Section 313 proceedings, he denied the facts deposed by prosecution witnesses. He did not examine any witness on his side. At the conclusion of trial, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the charge laid against the accused was proved beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and Rs. 3,000/- fine, in default one month simple imprisonment. Against the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred criminal appeal before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur in C.A. No. 41/2015. 3,000/- fine, in default one month simple imprisonment. Against the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred criminal appeal before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur in C.A. No. 41/2015. The same was also dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence. Against which, this Criminal Revision has been preferred by the accused/revision petitioner. 4. The limited jurisdiction available to this court is set out in section 397 Cr.P.C. must be first borne in mind, in the light of the concurrent findings. The appreciation or reappraisal of evidence are not permissible unless there are glaring defects of misreading, non-reading or reading in to or down the evidence on record, apparent prejudicial irregularities and illegalities. 5. According to the revision petitioner, the trial court has permitted the making of the postmortem report under Ex.P6 through PW-6 but the same was not proved through the Medical officer who conducted the postmortem and so the cause of death is not proved as per law. But such a belated argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the occurrence is and was not disputed by the accused in the trial and did not even make objection at the time of marking of the document. Moreover the cause of death also was not disputed at the time of trial. His only defence was the deceased suddenly crossed the road and invited the accident. It was not even suggested to the investigating officer namely PW-6 that the death was not due to the injuries suffered by the deceased in the occurrence. The evidence of PW-1 and 2 shows the deceased died on the spot itself. So nothing more is required to prove the cause of death. Since the occurrence and the cause of death was not disputed before the trial court, it seen the trial court discussed the issue on taking that the death was due the injuries suffered by the deceased in the occurrence. So the belated contention cannot be accepted. So the argument of illegality is not appealing. 6. The next contention is that as per the case of the prosecution, the occurrence took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of a person, who was found in drunken condition and from the evidence of the prosecution, it is not established that the accused/revision petitioner was not found in drunken state at the time of occurrence. 6. The next contention is that as per the case of the prosecution, the occurrence took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of a person, who was found in drunken condition and from the evidence of the prosecution, it is not established that the accused/revision petitioner was not found in drunken state at the time of occurrence. So, according to him the identity of the offender was not established by the prosecution. But, this contention on the part of the revision petitioner can not be accepted for the reason that all along his identity was not disputed and his involvement in the occurrence was also not disputed. What was disputed is only the manner of the occurrence, it is also admitted by the revision petitioner that in the incident, he also sustained injuries. When PW-1 was cross examined by the accused, it was suggested to the effect that he also sustained injury. The accused and as well as the deceased were found lying separately. There is a specific cross examination by the accused in this manner. Now it is too late to say that the identity of the offender was not established by the prosecution. So, this contention of the revision petitioner is liable to be rejected and accordingly rejected. I find that only the revision petitioner was involved in the occurrence. 7. The next point which arises for consideration is whether the allegation that the revision petitioner/accused was found drunk during the occurrence, was established in the Trial Court. Neither in the charge sheet nor during the statement recorded, it has been stated that the revision petitioner was found drunk and also in possession of some liquor and toddy bottles. The specific question put by the accused to PW-3 is, whether he stated so in this regard, he stated that he did not say anything like that, when he was enquired by the Investigating Officer. Moreover the trial court has also recorded a finding to the effect that the allegation of drunken driving is not established. So, it is seen that some improvements were made by PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5 at the time of giving evidence before the Trial Court. 8. According to the accused when improvements are made, their credibility is also under cloud. Moreover the trial court has also recorded a finding to the effect that the allegation of drunken driving is not established. So, it is seen that some improvements were made by PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5 at the time of giving evidence before the Trial Court. 8. According to the accused when improvements are made, their credibility is also under cloud. The principle that ‘falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ does not apply to the Indian condition, it is the basic principle of appreciation of evidence that chaff must be removed from the grains and the grains only must be taken. The trial court and the appellate court did not find anything untrustworthy regarding other aspects because of the improvements. We have to discuss this point in the light of facts. Now let us see the manner of occurrence and the top sketch. 9. The deceased as well as the accused/revision petitioner were proceeding one by one in the North-South direction. The deceased person was crossing the road from east to west to reach the mill compound where the kabadi sport was played. The revision petitioner/accused slightly took deviation from the middle of the road and went two feet to west and dashed against the deceased. This is evident from the Rough Sketch under Ex.P4 drawn by the Investigating Officer. The total breath of the road is 22 feet. The Place of occurrence is slightly on the western road portion from the middle. Now, the revision petitioner would say that the deceased without noticing the vehicle coming behind him suddenly crossed the road and invited the accident. In fact, this was disaproved by both the Courts below. Now, the question which arises for consideration is whether this Court sitting in revisional jurisdiction can re-appreciate or reappraise the evidence and the concurrent findings of the Courts below. If the revision petitioner is able to establish that the Courts below namely, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court misread the evidence and findings are totally perverse this Court cannot upset the findings. For this purpose only i have noted the limits available to this court. So, for that purpose we have to read the evidence and as well as the findings of the Courts below. 10. PW-1 during evidence stated that only the accused drove the vehicle in drunken mood and dashed against the deceased who was proceeding from North-South direction. For this purpose only i have noted the limits available to this court. So, for that purpose we have to read the evidence and as well as the findings of the Courts below. 10. PW-1 during evidence stated that only the accused drove the vehicle in drunken mood and dashed against the deceased who was proceeding from North-South direction. There was a specific question with regard to crossing, he would say that the deceased after crossing the road, reached the main gate of the ground where the kabadi tournament took place. He would also admit that the deceased crossed the road from East to West direction. He would deny that he did do the crossing suddenly. PW-3 also says that after crossing the road, the deceased went to the ground gate where the kabadi tournament took place. But, he would deny that the occurrence took place when the deceased suddenly crossed the road. PW-4 also says that the deceased after crossing the road, went near the main gate of the ground only at the time the occurrence took place. But he would also deny that the deceased invited the accident by suddenly crossing the road without noticing the vehicle. Similarly PW-5 also says that the deceased has also crossed the road and went to the Western portion. But he would deny that the deceased suddenly crossed the road without noticing the coming vehicle. So reading of the evidence of the witnesses clearly shows that the deceased was about to go the Western side ground where the kabadi tournament took place. So naturally he had to cross the road and infact crossing the road. But the evidences of these people that the deceased went nearer to the gate after crossing the road is not correct. 11. Here comes the principle of Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus principle. Even if we remove the chaff from the grains, they too are not pure. As stated by them, had the deceased crossed the road and went nearer to the gate on the west, the occurrence could not have taken place at all. Not only they have made improvements regarding drunken driving, but also gave misinformation about the manner of the occurrence itself. This piece of their evidence creates some doubt in the mind of this court whether actually they witnessed the occurrence. Not only they have made improvements regarding drunken driving, but also gave misinformation about the manner of the occurrence itself. This piece of their evidence creates some doubt in the mind of this court whether actually they witnessed the occurrence. Because, as per the sketch as mentioned earlier, the accident took place slightly away from the middle of the North-South road. So in all probability, the occurrence would have taken place when the deceased was in the process crossing the road. But this important aspect appears to have been not taken proper care by the Courts below. The Trial Court had recorded the findings that the accused deviated from his left side and went to the right and dashed against the deceased. In case of sudden crossings, it has been repeatedly held by the several Courts that the drivers could not have anticipated such sudden crossings and avoided the occurrence. There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased before crossing road had shown some signs indicating that he is going to cross road. In the absence of any such evidence simply because the accused/revision petitioner deviated slightly from the middle of the road, no rash and negligence act can be imputed. So I am of the considered view that not only the Trial Court but also the Appellate Court failed to read evidence in the correct perspective keeping in view of the manner of occurrence. It appears that the Courts below have been carried away by the facts that the accused/revision petitioner deviated from the left. From this alone as mentioned earlier, no inference can be drawn that he was rash and negligent. So absolutely no criminal liability can be foisted upon the accused/revision petitioner. So I am of the considered view that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse, which required to be interfered by exercising the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 12. In the result, I find that the prosecution has not established the case beyond all reasonable doubts and I find that conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court as confirmed by the Appellate Court requires interference and to be set aside. 13. In the result, the criminal revision case is allowed. 12. In the result, I find that the prosecution has not established the case beyond all reasonable doubts and I find that conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court as confirmed by the Appellate Court requires interference and to be set aside. 13. In the result, the criminal revision case is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court as confirmed by the Appellate Court are set aside and the accused/revision petitioner is acquitted of the allegation made against him under Section 304(A) I.P.C. Fine amount if any paid, shall be refunded. The sureties shall stand discharged.