The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving negligence and rashness in driving. The judgment also emphasized the accused's right to present a defense and the limitations of invoking res ipsa loquitur.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal revision petition is filed by the accused/revision petitioner against the concurrent findings of conviction passed by the JMFC, Ron in C.C.No.7/2006 dtd. 23/7/2007 and confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag in Crl.A.No.32/2007 dtd. 28/6/2013 for the offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial court.

3. The brief facts leading to the case are that, on 29/3/2005 at about 5.30 a.m. near Ron Petrol bunk, the accused drove his lorry bearing No.KA-21/U-5045 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to a 407 tempo bearing No.KA-28/8200. Due to which, the complainant and C.Ws.7 to 27 who were travelling in the said tempo sustained grievous injuries, while the driver of the tempo suffered fatal injuries and succumbed because of the injuries in the hospital. On the basis of the complaint, the investigating officer has registered the case in crime No.29/2005. He investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. After submission of the charge sheet, as there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the alleged offences. He has also secured presence of the accused and he was enlarged on bail. The accused has denied the accusation made against him. Then the prosecution has examined in all 19 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 19 and also placed reliance on 29 documents as Exs.P1 to P29 to prove the guilt of the accused. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable him to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case of the prosecution. The case of the accused is of total denial. Further, he did not choose to lead any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence.

4. After hearing the arguments, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. The accused has challenged this judgment of conviction before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag in Crl.A.No.32/2007 and the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dtd. 28/6/2013 dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction. Being aggrieved by these concurrent findings, the revision petitioner/accused has filed this criminal revision petition challenging the concurrent findings of both the courts below.

5. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent and perused the trial court records.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused would contend that judgments and orders passed by both the courts below are contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. He would further contend that both the courts below have failed to give proper reasons and the judgments and orders are erroneous resulted in miscarriage of justice. That both the courts below have failed to appreciate the contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 6 and their evidence being unnatural, artificial and were not creditworthy. That none of the eye-witnesses were able to say the speed of the vehicle and both the courts below have not raised proper probabilities and inferences. Hence, he would contend that that both the courts below erred in convicting the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition by acquitting the accused.

7. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that both the courts below have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in detail and arrived at a just decision. He would contend that both the courts below have imposed reasonable sentence, which does not call for any interference and prayed for rejection of the revision petition.

8. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evi