ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision is filed against the judgment dated 20.0.2014 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A. No. 73 of 2013 confirming the judgment dated 16.05.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Pollachi in C.C. No. 663 of 2005. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 29.11.2005 at about 10.45 hrs. near Meenkarai to Pollachi Road, the petitioner/accused herein had driven the bus bearing Registration No. KL-9N-7181 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the backside of the bike bearing Registration No. TN-41L-4287 driven by the victim Kalimuthu and caused his death. On the complaint given by PW-1, the respondent registered a case in Cr. No. 499 of 2005 and after completion of investigation filed the final report against the petitioner/accused for the offences under Section 279 and 304A IPC. On summons the petitioner/accused appeared before the trial Court and copies of the documents were furnished to him at free of cost under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the substances of the charges were explained to the petitioner/accused and he was questioned in Tamil and charges were framed under Section 279 and 304A IPC and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. On the side of the prosecution 13 witnesses viz. PW-1 to PW-13 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 and MO.1-Photographs were marked. 4. The case of the prosecution as disclosed from the evidences of the prosecution is as follow: PW-1 and the deceased victim/Kalimuthu are relatives. They had gone to Kerala for the purpose of attending to a financial business and while they were returning in two separate two-wheelers on 29.11.2005 at 10.45 hrs. near Meenkarai, the petitioner/accused who was driving a private bus bearing Registration No. KL-9N-7181 at high speed dashed against the victim's two wheeler, due to which, the victim was thrown away from the vehicle and fell down and sustained injuries. The bus came to halt after moving few distance. On seeing the accident, PW-1 and PW-3 who were coming behind the bus in the other two wheelers stopped and lifted the victim. The victim sustained injuries on the right head, forearm and upper knee. The bus came to halt after moving few distance. On seeing the accident, PW-1 and PW-3 who were coming behind the bus in the other two wheelers stopped and lifted the victim. The victim sustained injuries on the right head, forearm and upper knee. PW-1 had taken the victim in Ambulance to the Coimbatore Government Hospital, while crossing Pollachi, the victim became unconscious and thereafter, the victim was taken to the Pollachi Government Hospital, where he was declared brought dead at 2.45 p.m. The body was kept in the mortuary. PW-1 had gone to the Annamalai police station gave information and the complaint was prepared by some one in the police station and PW-1 had affixed his signature in the complaint. The complaint given by PW-1 is marked as Ex.P1. 5. PW-2 is yet another motorcyclist who followed PW-1 and witnessed the occurrence. 6. PW-3 is the nephew of victim and he had deposed that he heard about the accident. 7. PW-4 is the wife of the victim and she had deposed about hearing the accident and the death of the victim/her husband. 8. PW-5 is the passenger who travelled in the bus driven by the petitioner/accused, he had deposed that the petitioner/accused had driven the bus in a high speed and hit the backside of the two wheeler and that he had witnessed the accident. 9. PW-6 is yet another passenger who was traveling in the bus driven by the petitioner/accused. He had spoken that the bus which was driven by the petitioner/accused had dashed against the two wheeler and the victim having sustained injury and were taken in an Ambulance to Pollachi Government Hospital where the victim was declared brought dead. 10. PW-7 is the photographer who had taken photographs at the place of occurrence. The photographs and the negatives taken by him were marked as M.O.1 series. 11. PW-8 is the witness who had signed in the observation mahazar prepared by the police, which was marked as Ex.P2. 12. PW-9 is one of the witnesses who had attested in the rough sketch Ex.P6. 13. PW-10 is the Motor vehicle inspector who had inspected the offending vehicle driven by the petitioner/accused and the two wheeler driven by the victim and issued MVI report Ex.P3. 14. PW-11 is the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem, the postmortem report is marked as Ex.P4. 15. 13. PW-10 is the Motor vehicle inspector who had inspected the offending vehicle driven by the petitioner/accused and the two wheeler driven by the victim and issued MVI report Ex.P3. 14. PW-11 is the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem, the postmortem report is marked as Ex.P4. 15. PW-12 is the Sub Inspector of Police who had registered the FIR based on the complaint given by PW-1. The FIR is marked as Ex.P5. 16. PW-13 is the Investigating Officer who completed the investigation and filed the final report. The rough sketch and the Inquest report were marked as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 and the trip sheet of the bus driven by the petitioner/accused was marked as Ex.P8. PW-13 deposed that after examination of the witnesses and verification of documents and receipt of the MVI report, he had filed the final report against the accused on 07.12.2005 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC. 17. After the closure of prosecution side evidence, the petitioner/accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances and he denied the charges and on his side, he examined one Singaraja as defence witness/DW-1. DW-1 had deposed that after dropping the passengers in the bus stop the bus had moved slowly and the bus was not driven in a rash and negligent manner. 18. The trial Court after hearing both sides, found the petitioner/accused guilty and convicted him for the offences under Section 279 and 304A IPC and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo another one month period of simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC and no separate punishment was awarded for the offence under Section 279 IPC as the trial Court found that the ingredients for the offence under Section 279 and 304(A) IPC are one and the same. 19. As against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal in C.A. No. 73 of 2013 before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The appellate Court after re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidences, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial Court vide order dated 20.01.2014, against which the present revision is filed. 20. The appellate Court after re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidences, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial Court vide order dated 20.01.2014, against which the present revision is filed. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the judgment of both the Courts below would submit that the petitioner/accused was charged for the offence under Section 279 and 304A IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to convict an accused for the offence under Section 279 and 304A IPC, the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of rashness and negligence. In this case, the presence of the eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful and they seem to be planted by the prosecution for its case and they could not have seen the incident. Even assuming without admitting their presence, their evidence does not disclose the ingredients of the offence to which the petitioner was charged for and the Courts below have wrongly convicted the petitioner/accused. They have not spoken as if the petitioner had acted in a rash and negligent manner. 21. The learned counsel would submit that PW-1, PW-2, PW-5 and PW-6 are stated to be the witnesses to the occurrence. However, analysis of the evidence would go to show that they are planted by the prosecution for this case. Admittedly, PW-1 and PW-2 are close relatives to the deceased. PW-5 and PW-6 are stated to be the passengers in the bus driven by the accused. The time of occurrence, the time of alleged death and the time of giving complaint would prove that PW-1 and PW-2 were not present in the scene of occurrence. The prosecution has willfully failed to examine the Doctor who is stated to have initially admitted and attended on the victim and declared him as brought dead. The prosecution has willfully burked the accident register, since it was against the case of the prosecution and that it would falsify that PW-1 is the person who had admitted the deceased. PW-5 and PW-6 are planted witnesses and they are residing in some other villages which are about 15 kms. away from Pollachi Government Hospital and they have deposed that they were travelling in the bus and that they have seen the accused dashing against the motorcycle which could not have been possible. PW-5 and PW-6 are planted witnesses and they are residing in some other villages which are about 15 kms. away from Pollachi Government Hospital and they have deposed that they were travelling in the bus and that they have seen the accused dashing against the motorcycle which could not have been possible. Even as per their evidence, there were other passengers who were standing and travelling in the bus. Further it is their case that on the next day when they went to Pollachi Government Hospital, they came to know about the death of the victim and that they have given statement to the police. There is no need for the witnesses to go to Pollachi Government Hospital on the next day and thereby their evidence is highly doubtful. 22. The learned counsel would further submit that it is the case of the prosecution that the accident had happened at 10.45 a.m. and the victim was taken in 108 Ambulance after few minutes of the accident. Whereas, as per the prosecution, the victim is stated to have died at 2.45 p.m. which is nearly after four hours from the time of occurrence. No evidence has been let in by the prosecution as to what transpired in between and this fact coupled with burking of the copy of the accident register makes the case of the prosecution highly doubtful. Further none of the witnesses have spoken that the accused/petitioner had driven the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, he would submit that both the Courts below without properly appreciating the evidence have committed grave error and convicted the petitioner/accused. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following decision reported in M. Subramani vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Edapadi Police Station, Salem District, 2017 (1) LW (Crl.) 160. 23. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the prosecution by examining PW-1 to PW-13 and marking Ex.P1 to P8 and the MO1/photographs has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and the Courts below after appreciating the evidence of the witnesses in a proper manner and having taking into consideration the nature of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused. There is no infirmity in the judgments of both the Courts below warranting interference in revision and he would pray for dismissal of the revision petition. 24. There is no infirmity in the judgments of both the Courts below warranting interference in revision and he would pray for dismissal of the revision petition. 24. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record. 25. In this case, the PW-1 and PW-2/relatives of the deceased, PW-5 and PW-6/are the passengers in the bus they are stated to be the eyewitness to the occurrence. The incident is stated to have happened at 10.45 a.m. and the victim is stated to have died at 2.45 p.m. nearly after four hours from the time of the occurrence. PW-1 is stated to have accompanied the deceased in the 108 Ambulance. He is the one who is stated to have admitted the victim/deceased at Pollachi Government Hospital. However, the victim is stated to have died at 2.45 p.m. whereas no materials have been produced by the prosecution to show what transpired in between. Further, the Doctor who is stated to have attended the victim immediately after the accident and declared him to be brought dead had not been examined by the prosecution and the copy of the accident register had not been produced or marked thereby creating a doubt with regard to the prosecution case. It is the case of the petitioner that PW-1 could not have seen the occurrence and that he is a planted witness, further there is also a delay in registration of the FIR creating a doubt with regard to the case as projected by the prosecution contradicting the evidence of PW-1. It is the case of PW-2 that the injured was initially sent to Alva hospital after the accident and there is contradiction between the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 who are stated to be relatives of the deceased/victims who had accompanied the deceased at the time of the occurrence and thereby creating a doubt with regard to their presence at the scene of occurrence. 26. Now coming to the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 who are stated to be the passengers in the bus driven by the accused and eyewitness to the occurrence, PW-5 is the resident of Uthukuli village and he was travelling in the bus and it is a case that he went to Pollachi Government Hospital the next day and he came to know that the victim had died on the previous day and the Inspector examined him on the next day. PW-6 is also a resident of Uthukuli village and he has also stated that the next day he went to Pollachi Government Hospital and he came to know that the victim died on the previous day and the police examined him on the next day. It is admitted by both the witnesses PW-5 and PW-6 that they were sitting and that several passengers were travelling by standing in the bus at the time of accident, when that is so they could not have seen what had happened on the front side of the bus. Their evidence is also suspicious. It is the further case of the revision petitioner though PW-1, PW-2, PW-5 and PW-6 could not have seen the occurrence, even assuming their evidence to be true without admitting their presence the reading of their evidence does not make out the case for the offence under Section 279 and 304A IPC, since they have stated anything as if the vehicle was driven by the petitioner/accused in a rash and negligent manner. 27. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of this Court reported in M. Subramani vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Edapadi Police Station, Salem District, 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 160, 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. 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. 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.” 28. This Court being a revisional Court is aware of the legal position that it cannot re-appreciate the evidence like an appellate Court. But when it is brought to the knowledge of the Court that there is gross mis-appreciation of evidence by Courts below and that the Courts without properly analysing the truthfulness of the evidence had rendered a finding and erroneously convicted the accused, the power of this Court has been preserved by Section 397 and 401(1) Cr.P.C. 29. In this case, the presence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-5 and PW-6 is doubtful, further the prosecution has not examined the Doctor who is alleged to have initially admitted the victim and declared him dead. Further, the accident register had been burked for reasons not known. Though, the accident has taken place at 10.45 a.m. the victim had died at 2.45 p.m. nearly four hours after of the occurrence, nothing has been elicited by the prosecution to prove what had happened or what transpired between 10.45 a.m. to 2.45 pm. Further there is a delay in registration of the case, thereby making the prosecution case doubtful. The evidence of the witnesses do not state that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. 30. Further there is a delay in registration of the case, thereby making the prosecution case doubtful. The evidence of the witnesses do not state that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. 30. Though due to the incident, the person has died the accused cannot be convicted on mere surmises and conjecture and can be convicted only on legal evidence. The law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or suspicion alone. The burden of proof in criminal trial never shifts and the burden is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts on the basis of acceptable evidence. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the decree of proof required. In this case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the Courts below without properly appreciating and analysing the evidence have erred in convicting the petitioner/accused. 31. In the result, the criminal revision stands allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below are set aside. The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted from 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.