The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible eyewitness and owner testimony to establish guilt in a case of rash and negligent driving resulting in fatalities.

JUDGMENT

H.P. Sandesh, J. - This Criminal Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order dated 31.12.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Davanagere in Criminal Appeal No. 101/2006 and the order dated 13.07.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & J.M.F.C., Honnali in C.C. No. 293/2003 and direct that the petitioner be acquitted of the offences alleged and charged against him.

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 09.03.2003 at about 5.40 a.m. to 6.45 P.M. at Honnali at AMPC Yard Tar Road, while Kum. S. Dakshayani and Sri Vamadevappa were going towards Hirekalmath. At that time, this petitioner drove the Tempo Trax vehicle in rash and negligent manner from Nyamati side and dashed against Kum. Dakshayani and Sri Vamadevappa from behind. As a result, both of them died at the spot. Hence, the police have registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC read with Sections 134-A and B of Indian Motor Vehicles Act.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 14 witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 14 and got marked the documents as Exs. P1 to P12 and the material objects as M.Os. 1 to 13. The accused has not led any evidence and did not mark any documents.

5. The Trial Court, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, particularly, the evidence of P.W. 1, P.Ws. 4 and 5 and also P.W. 10, who is the owner of Tempo Trax categorically deposed that on the date of the accident, this petitioner was the driver and after the accident, he himself brought the vehicle and parked the vehicle in front of his house.

6. Having considered the evidence, the Trial Court has convicted the petitioner for all the offences and maximum sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months is awarded along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days and also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offences punishable under Sections 134-A and B of Indian Motor Vehicles Act.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, appeal is filed in Crl.A. No. 101/2006 and the Appellate Court also, on re-appreciation of the material available on record, confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved that this petitioner was the driver of the Tempo Trax at the time of the accident, who drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Apart from that, the Appellate Court also considered the evidence of other eye witnesses, particularly, P.Ws. 4 and 5, who have witnessed the accident and also observed that, in 313 statement, except denying the prosecution case, the petitioner has not stated anything and also not denied the fact that he was the driver of the Tempo Traxs at the time of the accident. Hence, the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating the evidence available on record i.e., both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Both the Courts have lost sight of the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 that both of them have not stated in their evidence that the vehicle was bring run by the petitioner in rash and negligent manner, but they have only stated that the vehicle was being run fast. In their cross-examination, according to P.W. 4, it was at the speed of 90 to 100 Kilometers fast. But, P.W. 5 says that sit was at the speed of 60 to 70 Kilometers fast.

9. He would further contend that the pro