JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under sections 397 read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records pertaining to C.A.No.182 of 2015 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore and set aside the judgment and order dated 22.12.2015 passed therein confirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.07.2015 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.8, Coimbatore in C.C.No.110 of 2017 holding the petitioner herein to be guilty of the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of I.P.C., and imposing fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one week and one year Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.) 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below convicting the petitioner for the offences under Section 279 and 304A of I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.03.2007 at about 10.45 a.m., the lorry bearing No.TN 30 V 6842 proceeding from South to North on the Goodshed Road, Coimbatore, while trying to over take the two wheeler Hero Honda bearing Registration No.TN 37 U 7572 hit the rear left indicator of the two wheeler and ran over the vehicle rider Samsudeen causing instant death. The said accident was witnessed by PW.1 and PW.2, who were following the deceased Samsudeen in their two wheerler. They have deposed that due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, the accident occurred. PW.6, the shop owner near the scene of occurrence have deposed about the accident. The doctor, who conducted the postmortem, was examined as PW.4. The postmortem certificate marked as Ex.P2. The Motor Vehicle Inspector has examined the two wheeler as well as the lorry and given his inspection report which are marked as Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. 3. PW.6, the shop owner near the scene of occurrence have deposed about the accident. The doctor, who conducted the postmortem, was examined as PW.4. The postmortem certificate marked as Ex.P2. The Motor Vehicle Inspector has examined the two wheeler as well as the lorry and given his inspection report which are marked as Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. 3. Considering the evidence let in by the prosecution through PW.1 to PW.10 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P9, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304 A of I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A of I.P.C., and fine of Rs.500/-, in default one week Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 of I.P.C. 4. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.182 of 2015, before the IV Additional District and Sessions Court and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Court vide its judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.12.2015. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding of the Courts below, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed on the ground that the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is contradictory to each other and both the witnesses claimed to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence, have not even mentioned the registration number of the offending vehicle and further pointing out that the damage to the two wheeler has only on the rear side of the indicator and no other damage noted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, indicates that the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 as narrated by them before the Court is improbable. 5. As far as PW.9 witness to the Mahazar is concerned, he is not aware of the content of the document and therefore, his evidence is not reliable. Harping on the evidence of PW.5, the Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the two wheeler and the offending lorry, it is submitted that the accident has not occurred in the manner in which PW.1 and PW.2 have deposed. 6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State would submit that the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the petitioner is spoken by PW.1 and PW.2 who were following the deceased in their two wheeler and witnessed the lorry rashly over taking them and causing the accident. 6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State would submit that the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the petitioner is spoken by PW.1 and PW.2 who were following the deceased in their two wheeler and witnessed the lorry rashly over taking them and causing the accident. The postmortem report, Ex.P2 reveals that the death was caused due to the head crash of the victim. The sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer tallies with the narration of the eye witnesses, therefore, there is no error in the finding of the Courts below. 7. This Court on perusing the record finds that the accident has occurred while the lorry hit the left rear indicator of the two wheeler. There is contradiction in the evidence of PW.1 regarding which side of the road, the deceased fell after the accident. Though the witnesses said that the rear wheel of the lorry ran over the deceased, the sketch and the damage to the two wheeler indicates otherwise. The postmortem report indicates that the deceased has sustained crush injury on the upper part of the body, more particularly, head, face, right elbow, chest and abdomen, fracture in right clavicle in its middle and right ribs 2 to 7 in its posterior aspects. The cause for the death is shock and hemorrhage due to ran over the type of head injury. 8. In the said circumstances, though there is a minor contradiction between the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 in narration of the accident, the fact that the petitioner has been identified by the witnesses as the driver of the offending lorry and caused the accident due to his rash or negligence driving is proved beyond all doubts. The Courts below found that the lorry has dashed the rear side of the two wheeler and ran over the vehicle rider. This accident has occurred in a 40 feet road, where there is sufficient space for movement. Lack of diligence on the part of the lorry driver has caused the accident and therefore, the findings of the Courts below regarding the negligence on the part of the petitioner is affirmed. So far as the sentence is concerned, taking note of the age of the petitioner and his avocation, the sentence of one year imprisonment is reduced to three months Simple Imprisonment. 9. So far as the sentence is concerned, taking note of the age of the petitioner and his avocation, the sentence of one year imprisonment is reduced to three months Simple Imprisonment. 9. As a result, the trial Court judgment of conviction and sentence has confirmed by the appellate Court is modified as below: Charges Findings Punishment U/s 279 IPC Guilty Fine of Rs.500/- U/s.304 A IPC Guilty To undergo three months Simple Imprisonment Since the fine amount has already been paid, no default sentence is imposed. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.