The main legal point established is the duty of care expected from drivers, the distinction between rashness and negligence, and the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.

ORDER :

This revision petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 31.07.2012, passed by the learned Fast Track Court-III, Hospet, in Criminal Appeal No.11/2012, confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2012, passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Hospet, in C.C.No.2093/2010, wherein the petitioner-accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) read with Section 183 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act (for short ‘MV Act’).

2. Brief case before trial Court is that on 13.03.2010 at about 4:00 p.m, the complainant and his son-in-law by name Ramesh were riding on their bicycles from Mariyammanahalli towards Hospet carrying plastic pots. At that time, accused being the driver of Tipper lorry bearing No.35C 9666 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life or safety of others dashed against the bicycle of said Ramesh near water filter tank on N.H. No.13. Immediately after occurrence of the accident, the driver of the lorry ran away from the spot. The said Ramesh sustained grievous injuries on his head and thigh and they succumbed to the injuries. The case has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) read with Section 183 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act (for short ‘IMV’ Act) against petitioner.

3. Learned Magistrate after considering evidence of PWs.1 to PW.10 and Exs.P1 to P10 and also statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., convicted the accused for the above said offences and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period one month and fine of Rs.300/for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC in default of payment of fine accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.500/for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC in default of payment of fine accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused was also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.100/for the offences punishable under Section 183 of IMV Act, in default of payment of fine accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for two days. The same was challenged before first appellate court by filing the appeal, which also came to be dismissed by impugned order. Hence, this revision petition.

4. Heard Shri Manjunath G.Patil, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. Girija Hiremath., the learned HCGP for respondent-State. Perused the records of the trial Court and also the impugned judgments of both the Courts.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and also first appellate Court are bad in law. The Courts failed to appreciate the evidence and not considered the evidence regarding rash and negligent driving. PW.1Dharmappa is the father-in-law of deceased. Except the self serving statement of PW.1 nothing is elicited to substantiate the case of prosecution. PW.6 is said to have witnessed the incident from the distance where the lorry was parked by the side of the road and it was not possible to see what had happened on the road at the spot. Both the Courts have overlooked it. PWs.1 and PW.6 are the interested witnesses. PWs.2 and 4 have not supported the case. The essential ingredients of Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC are not produced. PW.8G.Panduranga, who is the police officer, admitted that the complaint was not written by the complainant and it is written by his staff. The evidence of PW.10Tulajappa Shankrappa is not trustworthy. Therefore, the said conviction has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

6. Against this, learned HCGP supported the judgment of trial Court and appellate Court stating that the witnesses have supported the case. Both th