ORDER : (G. BASAVARAJA, J.) The revision petitioner/accused has preferred this revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21 st October, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Puttur (for short hereinafter referred to as "trial Court") in CC No.1942 of 2008, which is confirmed by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, sitting at Puttur (for short hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Court"), in Crl.A.No.5003 of 2016 dated 26 th September, 2016. 2. Parties to this revision petition are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Circle Inspector of Police, Puttur Rural Circle, Uppinangady, has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304(A) of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 181 of the IMV Act. It is alleged that CW.1/PW.1-Rajappa Gowda is the resident of Periadka and Chibidre village, Belthangady Taluk, and that on 20 th May 2008, he and his relatives Nemanna Gowda, Laxmana Gowda, Naveena and Sooryanarayana Bhat and others had been to Subramanya Temple in two jeeps for performing 'Sarpa Samskara'. After the pooja, they headed back from Subramanya Temple at 2.30 p.m. In one Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-21-A-5466, Suryanarayana Bhat, Nemanna Gowda, Laxmana Gowda, Naveena, Anne Gowda, Janardhana Gowda, Somanatha, Sathish Gowda, Kamalaksha, Nemanna Gowda and its driver-Rajesh were travelling; and CW.1, his relatives and others, were travelling in another Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-20-M-1428. The ill-fated Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-21-A-5466 was being driven by the accused herein. The said Jeep was followed by the Jeep in which CW.1 was proceeding. When the said jeep was proceeding near Siribagilu on Subramanya-Gundya Road, near Pilicharu, the driver drove the same in a rash and high speed so as to endanger human life, and while so driving, accused lost control and dashed to a Marjoram (maruva) tree that was situated at a distance of 5 feet from the edge of the said Subramanya- Gundya road. Due to impact, the top of the said Jeep was entangled in the tree itself and it further proceeded 30 feet towards northern side and turned turtle, as a result of which, the inmates of the said Jeep viz. Due to impact, the top of the said Jeep was entangled in the tree itself and it further proceeded 30 feet towards northern side and turned turtle, as a result of which, the inmates of the said Jeep viz. Narayana Bhat, Kamala, Anni @ Gangayya Gowda, Nemanna, Naveena and Laxmana Gowda died at the spot, and its driver-accused Rajesh, one Nemanna Gowda, Janardhana, Somanatha and Sathish Gowda sustained grievous injuries. Immediately CW.1 shifted them to the nearby hospital in an Ambulance with the assistance of passers-by and later he lodged complaint with the police. After investigation, police have submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. 4. After filing of charge sheet, the case was registered in CC No.1942 of 2008 and summons was issued against the accused. In response to the summons, the accused appeared before the Court through his counsel and was enlarged on bail. The substance of plea was recorded. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has, in all, examined fourteen witnesses as PW.1 to PW.14 and 33 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P33. Accused had totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and submitted his written statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C stating that the accident occurred due to the mechanical defect and he also sustained grievous injuries to his head and other parts of the body. His Driving Licence was lost and he had forgotten the number of Driving Licence and also adduced the defence evidence and one of the witnesses was examined as DW.1 and two documents were marked as Exs.D1 and D2. 6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 181 of the IMV Act. 7. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused had preferred the appeal before the appellate court in Crl.A.No.5003/2016. The said appeal was dismissed on 26.09.2016. 8. Being aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court, the accused has preferred this revision petition. 9. The said appeal was dismissed on 26.09.2016. 8. Being aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court, the accused has preferred this revision petition. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court, is bad in law and contrary to the materials placed on record. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, who is the eyewitness, has clearly admitted that he reached the spot after five minutes of the incident, which clearly reflects that he is not at all an eye-witness to this incident. The PW.1 has stated that the spot mahazar was prepared at the police station, therefore, the prosecution did not prove the spot mahazar and seizure mahazar, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court has rightly brushed aside the defence of the petitioner. In fact, the defence of the petitioner is that due to the fault of the steering and break system, the accident occurred, for which he has examined the DW1, an expert in the field of automation. Besides, the Inspector of Motor Vehicles has not appeared before the Court to give evidence, which adds prudence to the effect that the accident occurred on account of mechanical defect and not due to the negligence of the petitioner-accused. Non-consideration of these vital aspects is bad in law. The Trial Court did not consider the defence taken by the petitioner in its proper perspective. Legal proposition says that the accused need not prove defence case beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof required of the accused is just to throw a stone of doubt on the case of the prosecution. However, the Trial Court did not consider the case in its proper perspective. The reading of the judgment shows that the learned Magistrate has put the blame with regard to each and every aspect on the accused, forgetting the laws laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions has held that it is for the complainant to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and accused need not prove the case. Admittedly, all the alleged eye-witnesses are relatives of the deceased and only to claim insurance amount, they have deposed falsely. Admittedly, all the alleged eye-witnesses are relatives of the deceased and only to claim insurance amount, they have deposed falsely. Therefore, the Courts below ought to have given the benefit of doubt to the petitioner-accused. 10. The Trial Court rejected the defence evidence on the count that the defence witness does not have any academic qualifications. This is improper appreciation of evidence. Just because an expert has not worked in any company, does not mean that he is not an expert. Even a small farmer will be an expert in his own field. Similarly, DW1 is also an expert with eighteen years of experience in automation field. Non- consideration of the same is bad in law. Both Courts have held that the petitioner does not posses the valid Driving Licence, pressing aside the explanation of the petitioner that on account of the accident he has also suffered injuries on his head and thereafter he has lost his conscious and he has also lost his Driving Licence and does not remember its number and he could not trace out the Driving Licence on time. 11. As against this, Sri. Venkat Satyanarayan, the learned High Court Government Pleader, would submit that both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court and sought for dismissal of this revision petition. 12. Having heard the arguments on both sides and perusal of records, the following points, would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the revision petitioner has made out a ground for revision of judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial court, which is confirmed by the appellate Court is illegal, perverse, capricious and suffers from legal infirmities? 2. What order? Regarding Point No.1 13. A perusal of the material placed before me makes it clear that accused was the driver of jeep bearing No.KA-21/A- 5466 at the relevant point of time. The accused has taken defence in his defence statement made under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in which it is stated as under: 14. 2. What order? Regarding Point No.1 13. A perusal of the material placed before me makes it clear that accused was the driver of jeep bearing No.KA-21/A- 5466 at the relevant point of time. The accused has taken defence in his defence statement made under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in which it is stated as under: 14. To substantiate his case, the accused has adduced the evidence of DW1-Suresh, who is a mechanic who has repaired the jeep and marked two documents as per Exhibits D1 and D2. DW1-Suresh has deposed in his evidence that on examination of Jeep, mudguard of the jeep was broken and the steering system was completely damaged. He has deposed that prior to accident, he has inspected the offending jeep and the same was in good condition. But after the accident, he found break pipe and steering pipes were broken. Further, he has deposed that if the steering pipe and its worm is cut, the driver cannot control the moving vehicle. He has deposed that he can state as to same out of his experience. He has also issued the receipt as per exhibit D2 in respect of the repair of the Jeep. 15. A perusal of the report of Inspector of Motor Vehicles which is marked through Investigating officer as per Exhibit P33, reveals that the Jeep was examined by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles upon requisition made by the Circle Inspector on 22 nd May 2008. He has inspected the vehicle on 4 th June 2008 at 11.00 am, and noticed the following damages: "1. Front left side mudguard damaged; 2. Front left side bonnet damaged; 3. Steering system damaged; 4. Top portion completely damaged; 5. Back side body damaged; 6. Seats damaged; 7. platform of body damaged; 8. Rear indicators damaged; 9. both side mirror damaged." 16. Exhibit P33 reveals that the steering system of the jeep was damaged, but the Inspector of motor vehicles has not observed as to the condition of steering pipe. In Exhibit P2- panchanama, it is stated that the top of the jeep was entangled to the tree to which it was hit, the left side mudguard was broken, bonnet, the left side headlight and body, right side body, hangers, seat, dashboard, were all damaged. In Exhibit P2- panchanama, it is stated that the top of the jeep was entangled to the tree to which it was hit, the left side mudguard was broken, bonnet, the left side headlight and body, right side body, hangers, seat, dashboard, were all damaged. The photos of the damaged jeep Exhibits-P3 to P6 with negative Exhibit P3(a), also reveal as to the damages caused to the jeep due to accident. Though the report of Inspector of Motor Vehicles report reveals that steering system was damaged, the Inspector of motor vehicles has given in his opinion that the accident is not due to mechanical defect. In this case, Exhibit P33 is crucial document to prove as to whether the accident was due to mechanical defect or not? Had the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, who is an expert in inspecting the motor vehicles, is examined before the Court, truth would have come out as to whether the accident is due to mechanical defect of steering wheel or not. The prosecution has not examined the Inspector of Motor Vehicles. This document is got marked through PW14, who has not deposed as to the contents of Exhibit P33 report of Motor Vehicle. The written statement submitted by the accused, the evidence of DW1, the contents of exhibit P2-spot mahazar, and the Motor vehicle report Exhibit-P33, so also, non-examination of Inspector of motor vehicles, reveal that the accident might have caused due to mechanical defect. 17. With regard to negligent act on the part of the accused is concerned, in Exhibit P1-complaint, it is stated that the Jeep driver accused-Rajesh, drove the jeep in a high speed and rash and negligent manner and hence he lost control over the vehicle and dashed to the tree on the left side of the road and caused accident. The contents of Exhibit P1 does not speak about the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. 18. PW1-Rajappa Gowda, who has lodged complaint has also not whispered anything as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. However, for the first time, he has deposed in his evidence that the jeep was proceeding in a zigzag manner which is not stated in the complaint-Exhibit P1. 18. PW1-Rajappa Gowda, who has lodged complaint has also not whispered anything as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. However, for the first time, he has deposed in his evidence that the jeep was proceeding in a zigzag manner which is not stated in the complaint-Exhibit P1. Other witnesses, PW2-Somnath Gowda, PW3-Satish Gowda, PW4-Kamalaksha @ Somashekara, PW5 Kamalaksha Gowda, have also not whispered anything as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. On the contrary, during the cross-examination of all these witnesses, they have clearly admitted that there is curve in the place of accident. 19. PW1 has further stated that only after five minutes after the occurrence of accident, he came to the spot and witnessed the incident. 20. PW4 has also admitted in his evidence that after five minutes of the accident, they have reached the spot and by that time, number of persons had already gathered there and further he has admitted that he cannot say as to how the accident occurred and what was the real cause for the accident. 21. PW5 has also deposed in his evidence that when he visited the spot number of persons had already gathered there. 22. PW6-Rohit Kumar, said to be the eye-witness to the incident, has not supported the case of prosecution. He has denied the statement said to have been recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is marked as Exhibit P7. 23. The Spot mahazar witness PW7-Satish, has also clearly admitted that there was a curve near the place of accident. Though there is a curve near the place of accident, the Investigating officer has not stated anything in Exhibit-P2 mahazar. However, the curve is shown in Exhibit P32-Sketch. Exhibit P32 reveals that there is a curve in the place of accident. When there is a curve in the place of accident, it is not possible to the inmates of the jeep that was proceeding ahead of the offending vehicle. All these witnesses have clearly deposed that they cannot say the exact speed of the jeep. In addition to that, the owner of the vehicle PW12 has deposed that he came to know that the accident occurred due to mechanical defect of the Jeep, i.e. cut of steering worm. All these witnesses have clearly deposed that they cannot say the exact speed of the jeep. In addition to that, the owner of the vehicle PW12 has deposed that he came to know that the accident occurred due to mechanical defect of the Jeep, i.e. cut of steering worm. The entire evidence will create reasonable doubt as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. It is evident from report of motor vehicles and other evidence that the accident occurred due to mechanical defect. Therefore, in view of principle of criminal jurisprudence, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused. For the aforestated reasons, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative. Regarding point No.2: For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed; (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 28 th October, 2015 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, which is confirmed by Judgment dated 26 th September 2016, passed in Criminal Appeal No.5003 of 2016 by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, sitting at Puttur are set aside; (iii) Accused/Revision Petitioner is acquitted of the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act; (v) Fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused/revision petitioner, be refunded to him. (vi) Registry to send the Trial Court Records along with copy of this judgment to the concerned court forthwith.