The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent and corroborative evidence of eye witnesses to prove the charges of rash and negligent driving, and the application of sentencing principles to reduce the sentence for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

JUDGMENT

H.P. Sandesh, J. - This Criminal Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order dated 15.10.2011 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura in C.C. No. 786/2008 and the order dated 03.11.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions and FTC-II, Hassan in Criminal Appeal No. 126/2011 and consequently acquit the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 25.08.2008 at 10.15 a.m. near K.P.T.C.L. Power Substation in Marashetty Hally-Agrahara gate road, the petitioner-accused being a driver of auto rickshaw bearing No. KA-18-8550 drove the auto rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner from Marashetty Hally towards Agrahara gate and dashed against one M.M. Thanuja, who was walking on the side of the road to the school. As a result, she succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Based on the complaint of C.W. 1, the police have registered the case, investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove the charges leveled against the petitioner, examined 15 witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 15 and got marked 8 documents as Exs. P1 to P8. The petitioner-accused herein has not led any defence evidence.

5. The Trial Court, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, particularly the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 8, 9 and 11, who are the eye witnesses comes to the conclusion that the evidence of these eye witnesses are consistent and it corroborates the case of the prosecution and there is no discrepancy with regard to the fact that they have witnessed the accident which is discussed in paragraph No. 17. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. Hence, convicted and sentenced the petitioner-accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and for the offence under Section 304A of IPC, ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000/-.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed before the Appellate Court which is numbered as Crl.A. No. 126/2011 and the Appellate Court, after reconsidering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, in paragraph No. 10 discussed the evidence of P.W. 1 and also considered the evidence of eye witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 1, 8, 9 and 11. Further, in paragraph No. 11, taken note of the fact that the vehicle involved in the accident i.e., auto rickshaw and on re-appreciation, arrived at a definite finding in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 that the Trial Court has rightly considered the material available on record and confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and affirmation made by the Appellate Court, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contend that the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 8, 9 and 11 are not consistent and there are discrepancies in the evidence but, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have not considered the discrepancies. It is also contended that no witnesses have identified the petitioner nor the vehicle during the course of the trial. The counsel would also contend that specific defence was taken that road was not in a proper condition at the time of the accident. Hence, the vehicle could not move fast as contended by the prosecution. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is very harsh and severe and it is an accident which has taken place in the year 2008 and almost 11/2 decade is over and th