The main legal point established in the judgment is that driving in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in injuries and death, constitutes offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A of IPC. The court also considered the age of the petitioner and the time elapsed since the incident in determining the substantive sentence.

JUDGMENT

H.P. Sandesh, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 16.11.2007 at about 1.00 p.m. near Karaganahally bus stop on Sabbanahally - Malali Road, this petitioner being the driver of the mini lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the children of C.W.5 by name Pallavi, Pavithra and also against C.W.8 Suresh and C.W.9 Manjula. As a result, they have sustained simple injuries and one child Pallavi succumbed to injuries. Based on the complaint lodged by P.W.1, case has been registered, matter has been investigated and filed the charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. The prosecution in order to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.16 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 8(a). On the other hand, the petitioner did not lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the petitioner for all the offences and substantive sentence is for one year for the offence punishable under Section 304A and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. For the offence under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively. For the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, an appeal was filed in Crl.A. No. 106/2011 and the Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the material on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the confirmation order passed in the appeal by the Appellate Court, the present revision petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that P.W.8 has categorically admitted in the cross-examination that the accident road is a upgradient road. The learned counsel submits that the witnesses are all relatives and they are interested witnesses and the evidence of these witnesses has not been considered by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court in a right perspective. The interested witnesses evidence has been relied upon by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The learned counsel submits that the injured and also the victim were standing on the dambar road and they were not sitting in the bus stand and admittedly the bus was about to come at around 1.00 p.m. and accident occurred prior to that. These are the aspects which have not been considered by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.

4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that P.W.6 and P.W.11 are the injured witnesses and P.W.7 to P.W.9 are the eye-witnesses and P.W.12, who is an eye-witness also reiterated the manner of accident. The learned counsel submits that the place of accident, which is shown in the document Ex.P.3 spot mahazar is also not disputed and the same clearly depicts that the accident was occurred on the edge of the road and this petitioner took the vehicle to the extreme side of the road and caused the accident against the persons who were waiting near the bus stop to board the bus and hence both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have not committed any error in convicting and confirming the order of conviction.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and looking into both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are:

(i) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in convicting the petitioner relying upon the prosecution witnesses