ORDER :

The present petitioner was accused in C.C.No.303/2008 in the Court of the learned Additional J.M.F.C at Maddur, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “Trial Court”), who by its judgment dated 20-04-2009 was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “IPC”) and Section 134 read with 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “M.V. Act”) and was sentenced accordingly.

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.58/2009 in the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Mandya (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “first appellate Court”), which after hearing both side allowed the appeal in part and though it upheld the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, but it reduced the sentence imposed by the Trial Court upon the accused. Not satisfied with the same, accused has preferred the present revision petition.

2. The respondent -State is being represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader.

3. The Trial Court and the first appellate Court’s records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

4. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the Trial Court and first appellate Court’s records.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the points that arise for my consideration in this revision petition are:

[i] Whether the concurrent finding recorded by the Trial Court as well as the first appellate Court that the accused committed the alleged offence punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 134 read with 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?

[ii] Whether the sentence of imprisonment modified and reduced by the first appellate Court further requires to be reduced?

7. The case of the prosecution is that the present petitioner being the driver of a Truck bearing registration No.KA-41/1699 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner while proceeding from Maddur towards Malavalli on 21-11-2007 and near Kolli bridge, he dashed against the rider of a bicycle by name Katagaiah from his behind, as a result of which accident, the said Katagaiah fell down and sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. It is further alleged that immediately after the said road traffic accident, the accused ran away from the place without attending to the injured and without even informing the Police and thus has committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the IPC and Sections 134 read with Section 187 of the M.V. Act.

8. The accused pleaded not guilty. As such, in order to prove the guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined eight witnesses from PW-1 to PW-8 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-7(a).

9. After hearing both side, the Trial Court by its impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 20-04-2009 convicted the accused for the alleged offences, which was further confirmed by the first appellate Court, however, by reducing the sentence imposed upon the accused.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument mainly canvassed three points. Firstly, that the road condition was not good and it was prone to accident. Secondly, he contended that the deceased who was a bicycle rider, on his own fell down and sustained injuries while negotiating in his effort to move from the road to the side line of the road/foot path where there was variation of the height. Thirdly, he also submitted that for non-examination of the medical Doctor who had conducted autopsy also, the impugned judgments deserve to be set aside. He further submitted that the vehicle coming to a halt after moving a distance of 20 fe