ORDER :

In this revision petition, the accused/petitioner has challenged the concurrent findings of the courts below, wherein the trial Court convicted him for the offence punishable under sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code [‘IPC’ for brevity] and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/--, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC., he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days, which Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence was confirmed by the appellate Court in Crl.A. No.111/2010.

2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP., representing the respondent/State.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 05.06.2006 at about 9.00 a.m., the accused/petitioner being the driver of TATA Indica car bearing reg. No.KA-52/M-4419, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner on BengaluruTumakuru road and near Hirehalli bus-stop, he dashed the said car against one Shivakumar @ Kumar, on account of which, said Shivakumar @ Kumar sustained injuries and subsequently succumbed to the injuries on 24.06.2006 and thereby the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC.

Before the trial Court, the prosecution got examined 6 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to 13. The defence of the accused was one of total denial.

The trial Court considering the evidence and material on record, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and passed the sentence as noted supra, which was confirmed by the appellate Court.

4. Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the courts have failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and not considered that it is on account of the victim himself, while he was trying to cross the road, the accident occurred and there is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner. He would submit that the prosecution examined two eyewitnesses and out of the said witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.2 has not supported the prosecution case and the evidence of P.W.1 is not sufficient to hold that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. He submits that the courts below have not arrived at a conclusion that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-A of IPC has not been established by the prosecution and accordingly seeks to allow the petition.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently contended that both the Courts have concurrently held that the accused is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. P.W.1, who is the eyewitness to the incident has categorically stated that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the victim. He further submitted that P.W.1 has also identified the accused and the registration number of the vehicle and therefore, there is no doubt with regard to the fact that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving by the accused and accordingly seeks to dismiss the petition.

5. From the material on record it is seen that the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to 13. P.Ws.1 and 2 are said to be the eyewitnesses to the incident. However, P.W.2 has turned hostile to the prosecution case. Therefore, the case of the prosecution squarely rests on the evidence of P.W.1.

6. P.W.1 is none other than the brother of the deceased and the complainant in this case. According to P.W.1, he along with his brother Shivakumar@ Kumar and their mother went to Hirehal