ORDER :

K. NATARAJAN, J.

1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the First Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court', for brevity) in CC No. 64/2008 dated 22.07.2010 and upheld by the Fast Track Court-II, Ballari (hereinafter referred to as 'the first Appellate Court', for brevity) in Criminal Appeal No. 65/2010 dated 08.10.2010, for having found the petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act', for brevity).

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the records. The rankings of the parties before the trial Court are retained for convenience.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the CPI Rural Police, Ballari filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging that, on 09.03.2008 at about 02.40 am, on a road leading to Bellary to Shruguppa, near Vakrani Camp, the accused being the driver of the lorry bearing registration No. AP 13/X 0882 drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed endangering human life and caused the accident and dashed to one Lakshmi Devi, who sustained injuries and died on the spot and also drove the vehicle over 153 sheeps and its baby sheeps and three donkeys were also died on the spot. The same was not intimated to the police and he has also not provided any treatment to the deceased. Thereby he has committed offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and Section 187 of the MV Act. After taking cognizance against the accused, the charges were framed and read over to the accused. He denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and got marked 15 documents. After closing the evidence the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is recorded. The case of the accused is one of total denial and he himself was examined as DW1 and got marked five documents.

4. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences alleged and convicted and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 279 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 187 of MV Act. The same was challenged before the first Appellate Court in Crl.A. No. 65/2010, where the first Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part by upholding the findings of conviction, but however, set aside the sentence passed for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC and upholding the order of sentence in respect of offence under section 304(A) of IPC and offence under section 187 of IMV Act. Assailing the same, the petitioner/accused is before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court and the first Appellate Court committed error in convicting the petitioner. Absolutely there is no evidence available on record. The witnesses PW1 and PW2 are though eyewitnesses, but the incident was occurred in the mid night at 2.40 am. They could not have seen the accused and there is no test identification parade conducted by the Investigating Officer. The eyewitnesses states they have seen the driver with the help of torch, but the said torch is not seized. The witnesses have seen the accused in the police station, when he was sitting alone. That identification cannot be acceptable. The number plate o