The main legal point established in the judgment is the inapplicability of the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur to criminal cases and the prosecution's burden to prove negligence and establish a direct nexus between the accused's negligence and the victim's death.

JUDGMENT

G Basavaraja, J. - This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 04.02.2011 passed by the Principal JMFC, Honnavar in C.C. No.413/2010 which is confirmed by the judgment and order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar in Criminal Appeal No.37/2011 and acquitted the petitioner for the charges punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC.

2. The ranks of the parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 30.04.2010 at about 10 A.M. at Manki Ellimakki in Honnavar Taluk on NH-17, accused being the driver of Tempo trax bearing registration No.KA-20/T-3557 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger the human life, took left side and went to a hill, as a result the vehicle was capsized. After filing the charge sheet, the trial Court has taken cognizance for the alleged commission of offence. The case was registered in C.C. No.413/2010. In response to the summons, accused appeared before the trial Court and plea was recorded, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined in all five witnesses as PWs.1 to 5 and got marked 18 documents as Exs.P1 to P18. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused has totally denied evidence appearing against him. He has not chosen to lead any evidence on his behalf, but during the course of cross-examination of PW4, Ex.D1 got marked.

5. On hearing the arguments of both side, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 of IPC. The impugned judgment of the trial court reveals that the accused was produced before the Court by the surety on 31.01.2011. The trial Court order sheet reveals that on 21.02.2011, accused was released on bail. As per the order sheet of Sessions Judge in Crl. A. No. 37/2011, accused was in judicial custody for a period of 20 days and sentenced for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 337 and 338 of IPC and simple imprisonment for one year for the commission of offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence, the accused has preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.37/2011 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar and the said appeal came to be dismissed on 30.10.2012. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Appellate Court, petitioner is before this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted his arguments that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in law. Both the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record. PWs.1, 3 and 4 are eye witnesses. During the course of cross examination of PW1, he has clearly admitted that, accident is not occurred due to the act of the PWs.1 and 3. In para 28 of the judgment of Appellate Court, it is observed that prosecution witnesses have admitted that there was slight drizzling on the day of incident. However, witnesses have specifically answered that the driver of the vehicle did not tried to overtake any vehicle at the time of accident. They have also stated that they cannot assign any exact reason for the accident. Though the Appellate Court has observed this fact, same is not properly appreciated in favour of the accused and confirmed the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. Both the courts have relied on the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur and has convicted the accused for alleged commission of offence. Said principle of doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur is not applicable to the criminal cases in view of the reasons assigned in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court. On all these grounds, he seeks for allowing the revision petition.

7. The learned c