This revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 160(2) of Railways Act, 1989. He is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. The petitioner was the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-25/F-1473. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.08.2006 at about 11.15 p.m., the petitioner was driving the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit at the railway crossing gate at KM.No.350-5-6 in between Chalageri and Ranebennur Railway Station and damaged the gate. The petitioner was tried on the said accusation before the Prl. Civil Judge and I Additional JMFC, Ranebennur.

3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. PW.1 was the gateman at the relevant point of time; PW.2 was the Section Engineer, who drew up the spot panchanama and seized the bus; PW.3 was the Railway Station Master. He has corroborated the statement of PW.1 that on 03.08.2006 he received the information from PW.1 that gate No.217 was closed for public vehicles and the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA25/F1473 dashed to the said gate; PW.4 was the pancha witness to the spot mahazar, who has deposed about the drawing of the panchanama and seizure of the bus; PW.5 is the RPF Inspector; PW.6 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who has deposed that in the incident even the KSRTC bus was damaged, its head light was broken and in this regard he issued the M.V. report at Ex.P.11; PW.7 is the Sub-Inspector of RPF, who deposed about the information received by him regarding the incident and he visited the spot at 6.00 a.m. and found that the gate was damaged and it was not possible to close the gate.

4. Based on the above evidence, the learned Magistrate was of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted the accused for the above offence. The accused carried the matter in appeal and by the impugned order dated 04.03.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.18/2011 the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Haveri (Sitting at Ranebennur) has dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the judgment and sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.726/2006.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgments and the grounds urged in the petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the very same contentions which were urged before the Courts below. He contends that the prosecution had not examined any independent witnesses. The sole eyewitness examined by the prosecution, namely, PW.1 has admitted in the cross-examination that he did not personally witness the incident and the voluntary statement relied on by the prosecution Ex.P.10 is not admissible in law.

7. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is seen that the above contentions are considered by the Courts below and on assigning proper reasons, have rejected same. The trial Court has observed that the incident took place at about 11.15 p.m. on 03.08.2006 and in the said circumstances it was idle to expect any independent witness. It has proceeded on the basis that there is no proposition of law that the evidence of a police witness or a lineman who was on duty cannot be believed. The trial Court has observed that PW.1 was a natural witness and his evidence is corroborated by the other witnesses who have confirmed the fact that soon after the incident, the information was passed on the Superior Officers, and at the earliest instance the registration number of the involved bus and the details of the damage caused to the gate were furnished to the higher officials. This evidence lends intrinsic corroboration to the testimony of PW.1. Thus, the trial Court has assigned cogent and acceptable reasons for accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and has substantiated the findings with the legal evidence available on record. The said reasons are affirmed by the