JUDGMENT ; PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J. Heard Mr. D.C.K. Hazarika, the counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the judgment and order dated 20.03.2010 passed by the learned learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagaon, Assam in G.R. Case No.1820/2005. 3. On 25.10.2005, the petitioner was driving a TATA Sumo Vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-02A-5235. Near Agriculture University Complex at Shillangani, Nagaon, the said vehicle ran over a school girl. She was immediately taken to the hospital but she succumbed to her injuries. On the basis of an oral complaint, Nagaon Police Station registered the G.D. Entry No.505 dated 25.10.2005. A person called Siddique Ali had lodged an FIR before police. Finally, police filed the charge sheet under Sections 279, 304-A, 338 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner. 4. During the trial, the prosecution side examined 6 (Six) witnesses. The petitioner did not examine any witnesses. 5. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the petitioner only under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaon. The petitioner/appellant claimed before the appellate court that the G.D. Entry which was exhibited as Ext.A, did not have the registration number of the TATA Sumo vehicle. The appellate court held that non-mentioning of the registration number of the vehicle in the G.D. Entry, does not have any consequences in the case. The appellate court found the evidence satisfactory and affirmed the conviction of the appellant/ petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 8. The first witness to be examined in this case was Rahimuddin (PW-1). He is a shopkeeper and his shop was situated near the place of occurrence. He claimed that he had seen a TATA Sumo vehicle hitting a girl. According to this witness, the driver of the said vehicle stopped the vehicle there and ran away leaving behind the vehicle. This witness has stated that the said vehicle was driven in a very high speed and the accident took place because of the fault of the driver. 9. According to this witness, the driver of the said vehicle stopped the vehicle there and ran away leaving behind the vehicle. This witness has stated that the said vehicle was driven in a very high speed and the accident took place because of the fault of the driver. 9. In his cross-examination, Rahimuddin has stated that many vehicles often travel through the road where the accident took place. He stated that his shop is at a distance of about 20 feet from the place of occurrence. 10. The second prosecution witness is Ismail Ali/Sheikh (PW-2). According to this witness, two girls were coming together and a TATA Sumo vehicle hit one of those girls from behind. The witness has further disclosed that the driver of the vehicle had stopped the vehicle there, then came out of the vehicle and ran away. The witness further disclosed that the driver of the vehicle was careless. 11. During cross-examination, he stated that at the time of the accident, he was sitting in a tea shop near the place of occurrence. After hearing the cacophony, he came out of the tea shop and saw that a girl was lying on the road. The witness reached the girl and tried to revive her as she was lying unconscious. This time, this witness has stated that he saw a TATA Sumo vehicle running away from the place of occurrence. This witness further disclosed that he did not know who was driving the Said TATA Sumo vehicle. 12. The third prosecution witness was Abdul Malek (PW-3). He is also a shopkeeper having his shop near the place of occurrence. At the relevant time of occurrence, he heard loud sound on the road and saw that a TATA Sumo vehicle was standing and a school going girl was lying on the road. Abdul Malek has stated that the driver of the said TATA Sumo vehicle had already ran away from the place of occurrence. 13. In his cross-examination, Abdul Malek has stated that after the accident, the driver of the vehicle had run away from the place of occurrence. He has stated that he knew the driver of the vehicle. 14. The forth prosecution witness is Abdul Kadir (PW-4). This witness has claimed that he had seen that the TATA Sumo vehicle had hit a girl. This witness along with some other persons ran towards the girl. He has stated that he knew the driver of the vehicle. 14. The forth prosecution witness is Abdul Kadir (PW-4). This witness has claimed that he had seen that the TATA Sumo vehicle had hit a girl. This witness along with some other persons ran towards the girl. According to this witness, the said TATA Sumo vehicle had stopped there. Abdul Kadir has stated that when the driver of the vehicle saw this witness and some other people coming towards the vehicle, the driver sped away with the vehicle. 15. In his cross-examination, Abdul Kadir has stated that he did not know the victim girl. He also claimed that he did not remember the colour of the said TATA Sumo vehicle. 16. The fifth prosecution witness is Siddique Ali (PW-5). He is the father of the victim girl. He did not claim to be an eye witness. He got the information of the accident and immediately rushed to the place of occurrence. He saw a TATA Sumo vehicle, having the Number 9235, was kept parked at the place of occurrence. 17. There is nothing material in his cross-examination. 18. The sixth prosecution witness is the Investigating Officer (PW-6). He spoke about investigation. 19. The defence plea is total denial. 20. I have gone through the evidence carefully. 21. Now, the question that arises is – as to who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident? None of the witnesses have claimed to have seen or known that the same TATA Sumo vehicle was driven by the present petitioner at the time of the occurrence. This Court is of the opinion that the prosecution side has failed to prove that at the relevant time of occurrence, the petitioner was driving the said vehicle which caused the accident resulting in death of a girl. 22. It is a cardinal principle of law that in a criminal case, the offence against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Here, a vehicle hit a minor girl causing her death. It is claimed that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. But there is no evidence that the present petitioner was driving that vehicle at the relevant point of time. 23. Here, a vehicle hit a minor girl causing her death. It is claimed that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. But there is no evidence that the present petitioner was driving that vehicle at the relevant point of time. 23. This Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court as well as the appellate court, both have erroneously oriented themselves and arrived at an incorrect finding. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed. 24. The judgment and order dated 20.03.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagaon, Assam in G.R. Case No.1820/2005, is set aside. 25. The petitioner Sri Rupjyoti Das is acquitted from the said case. Send back the LCR.