JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, Chennai and set aside the judgment passed by her in C.C.No.66 of 2009, dated 07.04.2017 as confirmed by the Appellate Court made in C.A.No.57 of 2017 by judgment dated 21.03.2018 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District in dismissing the appeal filed by him and confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.) 1. The Criminal Revision Case is directed against the concurrent finding of the lower Appellate Court confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in the case where the petitioner tried for the offences under Sections 279 IPC and 304-A IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution as spoken by its witnesses and held to be proved, is that on 08/06/2008 at about 15.30 hrs, while 58 years old Pratap Singh was riding his bi-cycle along the Vairakulam Street Junction on K.K.Road, Thangal Erikkarai at Ambattur, the Maruti Zen Estilo car bearing registration No: TN 20 AK 6550 driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver Mohan Karthick, (Accused) hit the bi-cycle at its back and knocked down the cyclist and caused injuries on his head, chest and mouth. The accident was witnessed by PW-7 and he has identified the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. The son of the accident victim Prakash Singh (PW-1) come in the motorcycle along with his friend Subbu Kutti (PW-2), saw Pratap Singh with injury on his head lying on the road. The injured was first taken to a Private Hospital by name ESS VEE Hospital. On their advice, the injured was taken to Kilpauk Government Hospital, but on the way Pratap Singh died and the doctor (PW-4), who tested him declared brought dead. The accident report is Ex.P-3. About the accident, PW-1 gave a complaint to the Ambattur Police and on receipt of the complaint Ex.P-1, the Inspector of Police Mr.Periyadurai (PW-9) at Ambattur Police Station/respondent police registered FIR (Ex.P-7) in Crime No:480/2008 for offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC against the driver of the Maruthi Zen Estilo car bearing Reg.No.TN 20 AK 6550. 3. PW-10, took up the investigation. He visited the accident spot and prepared the observation Mahazar (Ex.P-2) and rough sketch (Ex.P-8). 3. PW-10, took up the investigation. He visited the accident spot and prepared the observation Mahazar (Ex.P-2) and rough sketch (Ex.P-8). Conducted inquest and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P-9). The post mortem of the accident victim was conducted by PW-6 and the post- mortem report is Ex.P-5. As per the opinion of the Post Mortem Doctor, the death of Pratap Singh was due to multiple injuries all over the body and due to shock and haemorrhage. The offending vehicle Maruthi Zen was sent for Motor Vehicle Inspector's examination. The Motor Vehicle Inspector [PW-5] on examining the vehicle, gave a report which is marked as Ex.P-4 wherein it is stated that the accident was not due to any mechanical fault. 4. Considering the evidence, the trial Court in C.C.No.66 of 2009 vide judgment dated 07/04/2017 convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo 3 months SI and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC and to undergo 6 months SI and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC. The appeal against this judgment made in C.A.No.57/2017 was dismissed on 21/03/2018. Revision Petitioner contention: 5. The accused, in this revision petition contends that, the evidence of PW-1 ought to have been disbelieved by the Courts below, since he has not even stated from which direction the victim was proceedings and he has not stated that PW2 was travelling with him in the motorcycle, while his father was proceeding ahead in the bi-cycle. The testimony of PW-1 is unbelievable and his presence at the place of occurrence is not probable. Particularly, when the Doctor at Kilpauk Government Hospital in the Accident Register [Ex.P-2] has mentioned only the name of one Chandran and not PW-1, as person who brought the victim to the hospital. Both PW-1 and PW-2 admits, when they came to the spot, the driver of the car was not present. No test identification parade of the accused was conducted. The identification of the accused by PW-7 in the Court after 4 years is highly improbable. 6. The contradictions in the evidences given by the witnesses as found in the deposition before the Court and their previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C have not been given the due appreciation by the Courts Below. The identification of the accused by PW-7 in the Court after 4 years is highly improbable. 6. The contradictions in the evidences given by the witnesses as found in the deposition before the Court and their previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C have not been given the due appreciation by the Courts Below. The accused being a stranger, without conducting the Test identification parade, the Courts Below had convicted the accused. The Doctor at ESS VEE Hospital where the deceased was first taken for treatment was not examined. The Chandran, who brought the victim to the hospital was not examined. The evidence of PW-7 is wholly unreliable because he has deposed that his previous statement by the police was recorded on 08/06/2008 at 3.30 pm, whereas the FIR itself was registered only at 22.00 hrs on 8th June 2008. Regarding the place of accident, the inconsistency between the Accident Register(Ex.P-3) and the complaint ( Ex.P-1) is fatal to the prosecution case, in the absence of particulars about the direction of the offending vehicle in the rough sketch.(Ex.P-8). The prosecution case has to be rejected. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the AR[Ex.P-3], the Doctor has recorded the place of accident as near the plot No.2, Pudoor, Abiramapuram. Whereas in the complaint [Ex.P-1], the place of accident is mentioned as Thangal Errikarai, K.K.Road, Vairakulam Street. The rough sketch [Ex.P-8] does not show the bi-cycle or the maruthi car. The direction from which the victim proceeded and the direction from which the offending car came. The Courts below failed to consider this vital fact, which will enure the benefit of doubt to the accused. Contention of the State: 8. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), per contra submitted that, the eye witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 have deposed about the fact that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Car. By the time, PW-1 and PW-2 reached the accident spot, the driver of the car left the place abandoning the car. However, PW-7 has seen the driver and he has identified the accused in the Court. Since the prosecution has proved that the accident was caused by the accused, while driving the car negligently, the conviction and sentence is to be sustained. 9. However, PW-7 has seen the driver and he has identified the accused in the Court. Since the prosecution has proved that the accident was caused by the accused, while driving the car negligently, the conviction and sentence is to be sustained. 9. This Court perused the evidence in the light of the rival submissions made by the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent. 10. The careful reading of the deposition of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 even if their evidence has to be taken on the face value, without considering the contradictions and improbabilities stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, this Court finds nowhere these witnesses have said that, the car was driven rashly or negligently. That apart, except PW-7, none of the other witnesses has seen the accused at the time of accident. The AR which is marked as Ex.P-3 says, the victim was brought dead by one Chandran (Car driver’s father) i.e by the father of the accused. Neither PW-1 nor PW-2 or PW-7 has brought the victim to the hospital. If they were really present and seen the accident, they should have brought the victim to the hospital. 11. To convict the driver of the motor vehicle for offence under Section 279 IPC, the required ingredients to be proved are rash or negligent driving endangering the human life, which likely to cause hurt. If the rash or negligent driving has caused the death of a person, then Section 304 A IPC also gets attracted. In the instant case, the probability of the PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 witnessing the accident itself remotely probable. While so, they have not stated that the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of the Maruthi Car driver. Except in the complaint Ex.P-1 given by PW-1, nowhere in the testimony before the Court, this Court finds that the witness saying the accident was due to the rash or negligence of the petitioner/accused. 12. The additional lacunae in the prosecution case, which makes the version of the accident as spoken by the prosecution witnesses doubtful is the failure to mark the proper sketch. In the said facts and circumstances, the benefit of doubt has to extended to the petitioner/accused. 13. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. 12. The additional lacunae in the prosecution case, which makes the version of the accident as spoken by the prosecution witnesses doubtful is the failure to mark the proper sketch. In the said facts and circumstances, the benefit of doubt has to extended to the petitioner/accused. 13. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The judgement of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court in C.C.No.66/2017 dated 07/04/2017 as confirmed by the Appellate Court in C.A.No.57/2017 dated 21/03/2017 is hereby setaside. The petitioner/accused is set at liberty. Fine amount paid, if any. shall be refunded to the accused. Bail bond if any executed by the petitioner shall be cancelled. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.