1. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent.

2. The present revision petition is filed under Section 397 R/w 401 of Cr. P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the JMFC-II in C.C. No. 122/2007 and affirmation of the same by the learned Judge of the fast Track Court in Criminal Appeal No. 28/2007.

3. The appellant was the sole accused in Criminal case bearing C.C. No. 122/2002. He had faced a trial for the offences punishable under Sections 239 and 304-A of IPC. He is directed to pay fine a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to undergo S.I. for three months the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and is further ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to pay the fine amount and further to undergo imprisonment for 20 days. The said judgment had been called in question by filing an appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 28/2007 and the said appeal is dismissed affirming the judgment of the trial Court. Concurrent finding is called in question before this Court.

4. Several grounds have been urged in the appeal memo. The facts leading to filing of the charge sheet by the respondent-police are as follows:

Accused was the driver of a Tempo Trax bearing registration No. KA-12-4392. He was driving his vehicle from Hassan to Halebeedu i.e., from southern direction to northern direction. He is stated to have driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life at about 9.30 a.m. on 02.12.2001 in the vicinity of bus stop at Dasarakoppal, resulting in the death of a girl child aged about 3½ years when she was being taken to hospital at Dasarakoppalu for administering pulse polio. The defence set up on behalf of the accused is one of the total denial of the allegation of rashness and negligent driving.

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined in all nine witnesses and no evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused. The accused is examined under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. Mr. Hemant Kumar-PW1, PSI of the Rural Police Station conducted investigation and chose to file charge sheet. According to the prosecution-PW1, PW2-Vyramudi, father of the deceased, PW5-Sujatha, mother of the deceased, PW9-Chikkamma-grandmother of the deceased are stated to be the eyewitnesses to the incident in question. PW1 has not supported the prosecution case. The trial Court as well as the first appellate court have believed the version of PWs. 2, 5 and 9.

First information marked as Ex.P6 was lodged by PW2-Vyramudi-father of the deceased girl. He lodged the same at 12.30 p.m. on the same day to the Rural Police Station. On this basis, a case came to be registered in Cr. No. 239/2001. FIR can be used either for corroboration of the prosecution case or to contradict the same. It is better to look into the contents of Ex.P6 lodged by the father of the deceased. If one were to scan the evidence of PW2, it appears as though he was very much present at the accident spot and was an eye witness to the incident in question.

But the contents of Ex.P6 speak otherwise what is mentioned by him in Ex.P6 is that he, along with his wife-Sujatha, mother-Chikkamma and his daughter Harshitha were going for getting pulse polio administered to his daughter. According to him, when all of them were walking on the left side of the road, near KEB line, a tempo trax being driven by its driver rashly and negligently came from Hassan side and dashed against his daughter as a result of which, she sustained severe injuries on several parts of her body and immediately she was taken to Government Hospital where she was declared dead. If really he was present, he would have definitely mentioned in Ex.P6 that himself, his wife, his mother were taking the girl for getting pulse polio administered.

The evidence of other witnesses will have to be looked