This revision petition is preferred by the revision petitioner-accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 4.5.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC, Malavalli in C.C.No.143/2006 so also the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.01.2011 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crl. A. No.64/2009.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.05.2005 at about 05:45 p.m., Shankar, Puttaswamy and the complainant were walking on the left side of the road, 2 furlongs away from the village. At about 05:55 p.m., a tractor bearing No.KA.09/T.920 came from Kundoor side in a rash and negligent manner and at over speed, dashed against the cycle ridden by Manjunatha, son of Nagaraj aged about 9 years. The boy fell on the road along with bicycle and the wheels of the tractor, ran over his body. There was instant death of minor Manjunatha. The driver of the tractor ran away from the place of accident. Due to rash and negligent driving by the accused, the accident has occurred. On the basis of the complaint, the case came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The prosecution examined seven witnesses and produced the documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.6. On the side of the defence, neither any witnesses adduced evidence nor any document were produced. After considering the materials placed on record before the trial Court, it ultimately convicted the revision petitioner-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, when the petitioner-accused preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court, the appeal came to be dismissed. Hence, the revision petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-accused and also learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

5. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-accused, during the course of arguments, made submission that looking to the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1, 2 and 7, there is inconsistency in their evidence. There are contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He also made submission that the deceased was a boy aged 9 years old at the time of accident. The deceased was at fault when he was proceeding holding the milk can in one hand and holding the handle of the cycle in another hand. Therefore, himself lost the balance and fallen down. The tractor, which was coming from behind the cycle, driven by the accused, could not hold the break of the tractor and ran over the boy and the accident took place. The learned Counsel submitted that there is no rash and negligent driving by the revision petitioner-accused i.e., driver of the tractor. It is also his contention that looking to the sketch produced in the case, particularly on the road, goes to show that the deceased was in the middle of the road and was not on the left side of the road. This itself goes to show that the incident is because of the fault committed by the deceased boy himself. The learned Counsel further made submission that in the said incident, there is also contribution of the deceased boy and the entire fault cannot be put on the accused person. The prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 have admitted that the deceased boy was riding the bicycle holding the milk can on the one hand and the cycle handle with another hand. On the basis of this evidence, the learned Counsel submitted that the deceased fell from the bicycle and it was because of his own negligence. It is also his contention that the accused-driver of the tractor was coming slowly and not drove the tractor in rash and negligent manner. Hence, these important material aspects were not property considered by the trial Court/first appellate Court. There is wrong reading of the evidence and the trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused. Hence, t