ORDER :

This revision petition is preferred by Accused aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot in C.C.No.946/2009 dated 02.09.2010 convicting him for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, which is confirmed in Crl.A.No.72/2010 dated 31.03.2011 by Sessions Judge, Bagalkot.

2. Parties herein shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. Brief facts leading to this case are as under:

It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.09.2009 at about 8.00pm in the night on the Shirur Kamatagi Road, after about 3 kilometers of Kamatagi near the land of one Muttappa Vaneppa Malaghan near Shirur Village, accused while driving a KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-38 F-437 coming from Kamatagi side towards Bagalkot, drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and he negligently dashed against the Bullock Cart, going in front of the bus on the very same direction towards Shirur and caused accident. Due to the accident PW1 who was rider of Bullock Cart along with PW3 sustained grievous injuries and PW2 sustained simple injury. Thereby accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC.

4. On cognizance being taken by the trial Court, accused was summoned and his plea was recorded, wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, he was tried.

5. In order to prove the guilt of accused, prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses as PW1 to PW12 and got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to P9. Thereafter, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, whereunder accused denied all the incriminating evidence. Accused examined himself as DW1 and portion of statement of PW9 was marked on his behalf as Ex.D1.

6. After going though the entire material oral and documentary, trial Court came to a conclusion that prosecution proved guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted him for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC; Rs.500/-for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-along with default sentence for the aforesaid offences.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in Crl.A. No.72/2010. After re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the entire evidence both oral and documentary, the Appellate Court came to a conclusion that all materials produced before the trial Court have been carefully appreciated by the trial Court and has held that the trial Court rightly convicted the accused for the said offences and did not find any reason to reverse the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Hence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of trial Court.

8. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and judgment of conviction of both the Courts, the accused is before this Court challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of judgments of both the Courts.

9. Heard Sri P.Savadi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Ramesh Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State.

10. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that judgment and order of conviction passed by trial Court and confirmed by Appellate Court is contrary to the material evidence on record and facts and circumstance of the case and hence the same deserves to be set aside and reversed. Learned counsel further contends that both the Courts have committed serious error in not considering the oral and documentary evidence and there is no iota of evidence with regard to rashness and negligence on behalf of accused. Despite no material on record showing or pin pointing any act of rash and