1. The petitioners filed this criminal revision petition challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram/Fast Track Court, Erode, dismissing the petition filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. to discharge them from the charge under Section 304(ii) IPC.

2. The fact of the case, in brief, is as follows:-

(i) The deceased in this case one Santhiya and another injured one Kushma, were studying in 10th standard at one Devine Vidhyalaya Matriculation School at Thottakajanoor in Thalavadi. On 07.01.2013, after attending a special class in the school, both the deceased and injured were walking along the school play ground, at that time, the first petitioner/A-1 in this case, learning driving in a Mahindra Max Jeep bearing Registration No. TN-36-V- 8551, with the assistance of A-2, who was teaching him driving, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in to the school play ground and dashed against both the deceased and injured. Immediately, the father of the deceased with the help of others took them to the Government Hospital, Thalavadi, where the deceased was declared dead. Thereafter, the father of the deceased lodged a complaint before the respondent police and based on his complaint, a case was registered in Crime No. 6 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304(ii) IPC and after investigation, the respondent police filed a final report for the offence under Sections 279, 338 and 304(ii) IPC. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. to discharge them from the charge under Section 304(ii) IPC. The above petition has been filed on the ground that there is no sufficient grounds available for proceeding against the petitioners for the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC, as they have no knowledge to cause the death or bodily injury against the deceased and injured person. The accident took place unexpectedly, while both the deceased and injured students were cross in front of the vehicle suddenly. Hence, no offence has been made out against them to constitute the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC.

3. The above petition was contested by the respondent on the ground that A-1 in this case was learning driving with the help of A-2 in the school play ground and at the time of the accident A-1 did not have any valid driving license and A-2 also did not possess any license to teach driving, and they have willfully driving the vehicle into a school play ground where the students are playing and they have full knowledge that their act will likely cause death. Therefore, the act of the petitioners amounts culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. There are sufficient grounds available to proceed against the petitioners for the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC. The Court below considering the materials dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners holding that there are sufficient grounds available to proceed against the accused.

4. Considering the material available on record the Court below dismissed the application. Now, challenging the above said order of dismissal, the present revision has been filed.

5. Heard Mr. N. Manokaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. R. Ravichandran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners does not have any knowledge that the act of the petitioners is likely to cause death. Hence, the act of the petitioners will not attract the provision of Section 304(ii) IPC and there is no sufficient material available to proceed against them for the above offence. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the Judgment in Naresh Giri vs. State of M.P. 2008 (1) SCC 791 and another Judgment in Mohammed Aynuddin Alias Miyam vs. State of A.P. 2000 (7) SCC 72.

7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Sid