Vision-language models (VLMs) achieve strong performance on many benchmarks, yet a basic reliability question remains underexplored: when visual evidence conflicts with commonsense, do models follow what is shown or what commonsense suggests? A characteristic failure in this setting is that the model overrides visual evidence and outputs the commonsense alternative. We term this phenomenon \textbf{commonsense-driven hallucination} (CDH). To evaluate it, we introduce \textbf{CDH-Bench}, a benchmark designed to create explicit \textbf{visual evidence--commonsense conflicts}. CDH-Bench covers three dimensions: \textit{counting anomalies}, \textit{relational anomalies}, and \textit{attribute anomalies}. We evaluate frontier VLMs under \textit{binary Question Answering (QA)} and \textit{multiple-choice QA}, and report metrics including \textit{Counterfactual Accuracy} (CF-Acc), \textit{Commonsense Accuracy} (CS-Acc), \textit{Counterfactual Accuracy Drop} (CFAD), \textit{Commonsense Collapse Rate} (CCR), and \textit{Relative Prior Dependency} (RPD). Results show that even strong models remain vulnerable to prior-driven normalization under visual evidence--commonsense conflict. CDH-Bench provides a controlled diagnostic of visual fidelity under visual evidence--commonsense conflict.