ORDER :

1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.01.2010 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM, Mysuru in CC No. 992/2005 and confirmed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2010, dated 29.11.2010.

2. The petitioner is the accused before the Trial Court and the respondent is the complainant. The ranks of the parties before the Trial Court are retained for the sake of brevity.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the Traffic Police, Mysuru, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC and Sections 146 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging that on 21.07.2010, at about 8.00 p.m. on Hunsur-Mysuru Road, near Valmiki junction at Kukkarehalli village, the accused drove the Maxi Cab bearing No. KA-09-3549 in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of which, a passenger by name Ajay Shetty, who was traveling on the footboard fell down and the said vehicle ran over him, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries while he was shifted to the hospital by PW-2, the Police Constable. The PW-2 lodged a complaint. Thereafter, a case was registered against the accused and after investigation, Police filed the charge sheet against the accused. When the accused was secured and was represented by a counsel, his plea was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence. The prosecution in all examined 6 witnesses and got marked 7 documents. After the closing of evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The case of the accused was one of total denial, but not entered any defence evidence. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC. However, the accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 146 read with 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act and there is no separate sentence passed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC.

Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 17/2010, before II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, which came to be dismissed confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence. However, the Appellate Court by its judgment dated 29.11.2010 reduced the sentence to three months’ simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC.

Being aggrieved by the same, the accused/petitioner preferred the present revision petition on various grounds that the courts below have wrongly relied upon the evidence of the interested witnesses. There was inconsistency in the evidence. The so-called complainant is not believed to have seen the deceased victim traveling in the Maxi Cab. The eyewitness was the friend of the deceased victim. The statements of other passengers in the Maxi Cab were not recorded. The entire evidence of prosecution is taken on its face value. There is no case made out against the accused to convict him for the offences alleged. There is manifest error committed by the courts below, which is arbitrary, illegal and otherwise opposed to law. Hence, prayed for setting aside of the judgments of the courts below.

4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for the respondent. Perused the LCR and other material available on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuou