ORDER :

1. The revision petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.77/2010 before the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’). He is challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.09.2011 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and under Section 181 of MV Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/-for the offence punishable under Section 181 of MV Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

2. Brief facts of the case, as made out by the prosecution, are that, the revision petitioner/accused No.1, being the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA19 Y 6582, rode the same in a rash and negligence manner so as to endanger human life on 03.05.2009 on the National Highway leading from Mangaluru to Udupi and dashed against B.Nemu Shetty at 12.30 p.m. while he was crossing the road, as a result of which, he succumbed to the injuries. It is also stated that accused No.1 was not holding valid driving licence and thereby, he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 3(1) read with 181 of MV Act.

3. The prosecution, in support of its contentions, examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13.

4. The accused/revision petitioner has denied all the incriminating material available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. However, Ex.D1 was marked during the cross– examination of the prosecution witness.

5. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences and sentenced him as aforesaid.

6. Accused No.2, being the registered owner of the offending motorcycle, was also prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 5(1) read with Section 180 of MV Act and was convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 180 of MV Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Accused No.2 has not preferred any appeal.

7. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, accused No.1/revision petitioner herein had preferred Criminal Appeal No.200/2011 before the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), which has dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit vide judgment dated 25.08.2014. Aggrieved by the same, revision petitioner is before this Court.

8. Heard Sri Nataraj Ballal A., learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri Vinayaka V.S., learned High Court Government Pleader representing the State.

9. Perused the material including the Trial Court records.

10. Learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner contended that the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused/revision petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution examined PWs.1, 4 and 5 as eyewitnesses to the incident. PW.1 is the son of the deceased. PW.4 is one of the relatives of the deceased. Even though it is contended that PW.5 is also an eyewitness, in fact, he was not at the scene of the occurrence. None of these witnesses have identified the accused. Moreover, admittedly, the de