The main legal point established is the reliance on consistent witness testimony and documentary evidence to establish the accused's involvement in the offence, leading to the Court's decision to uphold the conviction.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This criminal revision petition is filed to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dtd. 29/9/2011 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru in C.C.No.826/2010 and also to set aside the judgment and order of conviction dtd. 9/10/2012, passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV, Bengaluru, in Criminal Appeal No.733/2011.

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

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that on 31/7/2010 around 9.55 a.m., this petitioner being the driver of the tipper lorry bearing No.KA- 416217 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner through Mysore Road and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, both the rider and the pillion rider of the motorcycle have fell down and the rider of the motorcycle had sustained simple injuries and the pillion rider, who also sustained injuries succumbed to the same, since the lorry ran over the head of the pillion rider.

4. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case for the offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC, Sec. 134 (a) and (b) read with Sec. 187 of IMV Act and Sec. 146 read with Sec. 196 of IMV Act.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove the case, examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P13. The petitioner has not led any evidence against the evidence of the prosecution.

6. The Trial Court, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the petitioner for all the offences invoked against him and substantive sentence of 6 months is awarded for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-A of IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.3, 000.00. In default of payment of fine, ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The Trial Court also imposed sentence as well as fine in respect of other offences.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and conviction, an appeal is filed before the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.733/2011 and the Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence and confirmation by the Appellate Court, the present revision petition is filed.

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that, though P.W.3 claims that he is an eye witness to the accident, he categorically admitted in the cross-examination that he could not identify the petitioner and the only evidence that remains before this Court is P.W.1. The counsel would submit that P.W.1 also in his evidence not specifically deposed with regard to the identification of this petitioner and brought to the notice of this Court that in the cross-examination, he admitted that the spot of accident is a busy road in the morning hours and the said road has got 40 feet width and the same is a two way traffic road.

9. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court, suggestions are made that this petitioner has not involved in any accident and the same was denied. The counsel also would submit that P.W.5 has also not spoken anything about involvement of this petitioner, except stating that the name Shivaraj Kumar mentioned in Ex.P8 is the accused before the Court. The counsel also would submit that the vehicle number mentioned in the complaint is different from the charge-sheet and these are the contradictions which are not considered by both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence may be set aside.

10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the lorry owner, who has been examined before the Court as P.W.5 categorically stated that, in Ex.P8, the name of this petitioner is specifically mentioned and his signature i