JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the Judgment and conviction dated 31.07.2017 made in C.A.No.55 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, Dharapuram confirming the judgment dated 25.04.2016 made in C.C.No.60 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Udumalpet.) 1. The revision petitioner herein is the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-57-T-8074. On 27.02.2008, at about 00.45 hours, the revision petitioner caused death of three persons and 18 goats by ramping into the herds of goat which was been taken on march by shepherds along the road. A case was registered under Section 279 and 304 (A) (3counts) of I.P.C and the petitioner herein was tried for the said offence by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Udumalpet. 2. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and were marked 13 exhibits. On the side of the accused, two witnesses were examined. 3. On considering the evidence let in by the prosecution, the trial Court found the accused guilty of offences under Section 279 and 304(A) (three counts) of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo 2 years S.I (3 counts) and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default six months S.I. No separate sentence was imposed for offence under Section 279 of I.P.C. Stating that, for the offence under Section 279 I.P.C., is in-built in offence under Section 304 (A) of I.P.C. The period of sentence was ordered to run concurrently and the period of imprisonment during trial ordered to be set off. 4. Challenging the order of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred appeal before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, Dharapuram. The Appellate Court found no merit in the appeal and hence dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of the Trial Court. 5. In the present revision, it is stated that the judgment of the courts below are perverse, contrary to law and evidence. It was contended that, the Courts below convicted the petitioner based on presumption, surmises and conjectures. The essential ingredient to prove the offence under Section 304(A) of I.P.C is negligence and rashness. Whereas, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner herein was driving the lorry negligently or rashly. As per P.W.1 & P.W.8 deposition they were leading the goats, the deceased persons were behind the goats. The essential ingredient to prove the offence under Section 304(A) of I.P.C is negligence and rashness. Whereas, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner herein was driving the lorry negligently or rashly. As per P.W.1 & P.W.8 deposition they were leading the goats, the deceased persons were behind the goats. Therefore, P.W.1 and P.W.8 could not have seen the accident which occurred behind then. Hence, they cannot be construed as eyewitness to the incident, when they were walking in front of the herd and the deceased persons were coming behind the herd. They were not carrying any visible sign or light with them. In the pitch darkness, they were occupying the entire road, negligently and were carelessly proceeding with the goats without proper care and caution. 6. On being disturbed by the head light of the vehicle coming from the opposite side, the goats went awry and these three shepherds who want to save their goats fall across the lorry suddenly and got injured. The evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.8 which was heavily relied by the prosecution and believed by the Courts below has to be rejected since their evidence cannot be eye witness to the occurrence. The prosecution witnesses admits that, only after hearing the commotion, they turned back and saw the goats lying injured all around the road and three of the colleagues struggling with bleeding injuries. 7. The failure of the prosecution to produce proper sketch of the scene of occurrence and non-consideration of the evidence of D.W.1 renders the finding of the Courts below perverse and needs interference. 8. Further the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner herein is a well experienced driver and familiar with the said road. He was diligent in driving the lorry. It was carelessness and negligence of the deceased persons, who were taking large number of goats on the road without proper signal, light or flag occupying the entire road. Their own carelessness is the cause for the accident. D.W.1 is the cleaner of the lorry who was present, next to the driver at the time of occurrence. He has clearly stated that, the accused was driving the lorry in a moderate speed and the goats got scattered on being disturbed by the head light of the vehicle coming from the opposite direction. D.W.1 is the cleaner of the lorry who was present, next to the driver at the time of occurrence. He has clearly stated that, the accused was driving the lorry in a moderate speed and the goats got scattered on being disturbed by the head light of the vehicle coming from the opposite direction. There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence and therefore, sought for interference. 9. The very same defence been canvassed before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court has applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur, had dismissed the appeal. 10. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) pointing out the evidence that the accused by ramping his vehicle into the herd of goats had caused death of 3 persons and 18 goats. D.W 1 & D.W.2, are the cleaner and driver (accused) of the offending vehicle. They though have deposed that, they were driving the lorry in a moderate speed and there was no rashness, if it is to be accepted, then, there is no explanation from them why they did not applied the brake on seeing the herds of goat and men ahead them. There is no explanation why they hit three persons and 18 goats and kill them all. 11. The rough sketch and SOC which is marked as Ex.P.10, indicates that, the vehicle which has ramped into the herd of goats, had stopped the lorry after 300 meters hitting the left side of the road margin. It clearly proves that the accused has not noticed the herd of goats going ahead him and had not attempted to stop the vehicle, but hit the goats and the shepherds. That is precisely the reason why there is no tyre marks recorded by the police, who prepared the rough sketch and observation mahazar. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that the finding of the Courts below is neither perverse nor improper. It is supported by evidence and reasoning. Therefore, the order of the Court below is confirmed. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.