ORDER :

This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the J.M.F.C., Koppal (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Criminal Case No.558/2010 dated 08.02.2012 and the same was upheld by the Fast Track Court-II, Koppal (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.12/2012 on 19.05.2012 for having convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 187 of I.M.V. Act.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner/ accused as well as learned HCGP for respondent-State.

3. The parties herein referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court for convenience.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the Munirabad Police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC and Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act. It is alleged that on 25.07.2010 at about 2.15 p.m. accused was the driver of lorry bearing Registration No.KA-25/C-1053, who drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to the human life and dashed to the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-36/F-736. On account of accident, the driver of KSRTC Bus was succumbed to the injuries and P.W.3 was the conductor of the said bus lodged the complaint before the police and same was registered in Crime No.131/2010 of Munirabad Police Station.

5. The accused was appeared before the trial Court and denied all the charges framed against him. In support the case of prosecution, prosecution in all examined 07 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked 10 documents as Exs.P.1 to 10. After completion of recording of evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the accused has been recorded by the trial Court. The case of accused was totally denial, but has not led any defence evidence. After considering the arguments and evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted for the above said offences, however, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC. Assailing the same, accused has filed appeal before the first appellate Court, which came to be dismissed. Hence, he has filed this revision petition before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. The trial Court and first appellate Court have committed error in holding the accused guilty for the said offences. The prosecution utterly failed to prove the rash and negligent driving of the accused and further contended that the accused was falsely implicated in this case as he was not at all driven the vehicle and prosecution not established that he was the driver of said lorry on the date of accident. Though, examined P.W.2 the owner of lorry, who has stated, he has sold the said lorry to the accused, but no document has been produced to show the said lorry was sold to the accused. Even otherwise, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 7 the eyewitnesses are not acceptable. The P.W.7 is so called eyewitness and who said to be the passenger of bus at the time of accident, but Investigating Officer has not produced any document to show he was actually traveled in the bus and he is an eyewitness to the incident. Though alleged to be sustained injuries, but no wound certificate is marked. Though, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC, but failed to appreciate the evidence on record. P.W.3 the conductor of bus is not able to say why he has not sustained injury, when he was accompanied the driver at the time of accident. The P.W.1 panch witness who turned hostile. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. However, mere running of the vehicle in high speed cannot be considered as rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver,