JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crl.A.No.115 of 2016 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, dated 20.07.2017 confirming the Judgment of Conviction in C.C.No.152 of 2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Athur and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Revision and pass order.) 1.The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.152 of 2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Attur, Salem and he was treated and found guilty of the offence under Section 279 of I.P.C., sentenced to undergo four months S.I and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default one month S.I. For offence under Section 304(A) of I.P.C sentenced to undergo two years S.I and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- each (two counts), in default one month S.I. The period of substantive sentence ordered to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by that, the accused has preferred an appeal before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Salem and after reappreciating the evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Questioning the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment of the Courts below, the present revision petition is filed. 3. The case of the prosecution as unfold through the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.22 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 is that, on 24.03.2010 at about 4.00 p.m., near Nalluran oddai Kullampatti, the petitioner herein while driving his omni van bearing registration No.TN-30-E-6203 rash and negligently hit the two wheeler from his behind and caused the death of Tamilselvi and Karuppaiya, the rider of the two wheeler and pillion rider of the vehicle respectively. The accident was reported by Srinivasan (P.W.1) to the respondent police. Anbarasan (P.W.20) and then Sub-Inspector attached to Veeraganoor Police Station registered a case in Crime No.66 of 2010 for offences under Section 279, 338, 304(A) of I.P.C. A case was investigated by Shanmuga Sundaram (P.W.21) and final report was filed by him. 4. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses, P.W.1, P.W.3 to P.W.6 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and who have been deposed that Karuppaiya and Tamilselvi were hit by omni van driven by the petitioner/accused. 4. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses, P.W.1, P.W.3 to P.W.6 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and who have been deposed that Karuppaiya and Tamilselvi were hit by omni van driven by the petitioner/accused. Apart from examining the post-mortem Doctor, the prosecution has also examined Dr.Sangeetha (P.W.18) attached to Perambalur Government Hospital, who has deposed that, on 24.03.2010 at about 10.10 p.m., she treated the accused Murugesan S/o.Thopplan for his injuries, which he stated that, it has caused by the public when the omni van driven by him hit two women travelling in TVS XL moped. 5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the witness for prosecution are reliable witness and their testimony bristles contradictions. Particularly, regarding the identity of omni van driver which led to have been caused accident. There is no substantive evidence let by the prosecution while identity is doubtful. The petitioner herein, who is driver of the omni van cannot be punishable on presumption. Further, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, according to the prosecution, the petitioner was driving the van, at the time of accident, the petitioner was under influence of alcohol. However, their own evidence belies the case. 6. P.W.18 has categorically stated that when the accused came for treatment for his injuries, he refused to give urine and blood samples for alcohol test. Whereas, the Accident Register (Ex.P.7) issued for the injuries sustained by the petitioner, it is stated that blood samples taken for alcohol analysis. Therefore, the said contradiction goes to the root of the matter being ignored by the Courts below for appreciation, renders the finding of the Courts below incorrect and not legally sustainable. 7. Per contra, the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent submitted that P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are direct eye witnesses who have been spoken about the incident. Particularly, P.W.1 had deposed that the omni van was driven negligently in an haphazard manner, after hitting the two wheeler, it got capsized. The observation mahazar (Ex.P.2) and rough sketch (Ex.P.12) are tell-tale evidences about the rash and negligent driving of the accused/petitioner. The petitioner was thrashed by the public for causing the accident while driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. He was taken to the hospital by his wife and Dr.Sangeetha (P.W.18) was treated the accused on the same day at about 10.10 hours. The petitioner was thrashed by the public for causing the accident while driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. He was taken to the hospital by his wife and Dr.Sangeetha (P.W.18) was treated the accused on the same day at about 10.10 hours. The accused has informed that, he sustained injury when dashed the TVS XL moped vehicle and caused the accident near Ponnimedu Veeraganoor road. In the Accident Register (Ex.P.7), it is noted that the accused/petitioner consumed alcohol. Though, it is note that the blood samples taken for alcohol analysis, in the Accident Register (Ex.P.7), the Doctor has deposed that the patient refuse to give samples but this will render the case of prosecution doubtful but only enhance the case of the prosecution. According to the respondent, the very fact that the accused went to the hospital for the treatment on that day for the injury he sustained. When public thrashed him, accused proves that he was the driver of the omni van, there is no dispute regarding identity of the accused and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision. 8. Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent. 9. It is a case of motor accident resulted in death of two woman who were travelling in two wheeler. The omni van which caused the accident was driven by this accused and same is proved by the eye witnesses as well as Ex.P.7 Accident Register which was issued to the accused by P.W.18. On examining him on 28.04.2010 at about 10.10 p.m., he has sustained lacerated wound on the lower lip 2x1 c.m; Pain all over the body; abrasion on the head 1 x 1 c.m. He was in the hospital till 28.03.2010 as inpatient and thereafter, absconded from the hospital. The minor contradictions between the prosecution witness regarding the presence of the driver, after the accident does not create any doubt about the identity of the accused. Since the accused has gone to the hospital for treatment and he has disclosed it to Doctor, the reason for sustaining injury. What is recorded in Ex.P.7, it is a case of the appellant given contemporaneously without any threat, coersion or force. Hence, the entry in the Accident Register is permissible in evidence and it is under the nature of causing judicial confession. 10. What is recorded in Ex.P.7, it is a case of the appellant given contemporaneously without any threat, coersion or force. Hence, the entry in the Accident Register is permissible in evidence and it is under the nature of causing judicial confession. 10. Regarding the negligence, from the evidence, this Court finds that after driving the omni van in an haphazard manner causing the accident, the vehicle got capsized. The witnesses who saw the accident has deposed that they saw the van driven rash and negligently. In view of overwhelming evidence regarding the petitioner herein for his rash and negligently driving, the trial Court has rightly held that offence under Section 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C are proved and same has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. For the said reasons, this Court hold no error in the correctness and legality of the finding given by the Courts below. 11. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.