The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove rash and negligent driving and causation beyond reasonable doubt in cases involving fatal accidents.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This criminal revision petition under Sec. 397 read with 401 of Cr.PC is filed by the sole accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dtd. 23/8/2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Nagamangala, in C.C.No.177/2010 (Old No.138/2005) and the judgment and order dtd. 21/11/2013 passed by the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Crl.A.No.74/2010.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records that would be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this petition are, on 25/10/2010 at about 9.20 p.m. between Hanumanakoppalu and Bidarakere gate near Turubanahalli, Nagamangala, the petitioner who was the driver of the goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-09-4646 allegedly drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner from Bidarakere towards Bindiganavaile and when the vehicle reached near Turubanahalli bridge, he lost control of the vehicle which thereafter turned turtle towards the left side and fell into a ditch and as a result, out of about 23 inmates in the vehicle, 8 of them died on the spot and several other inmates suffered simple and grievous injuries.

4. On the basis of the complaint lodged by one of the injured inmate - Subbannachar, the Bindiganavile Police registered a case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Ss. 279 , 337 , 338 & 304-A IPC. After completion of investigation, the police had filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the alleged offences. The petitioner had claimed to be tried before the Trial Court, and therefore, the prosecution to prove its case had examined 15 witnesses as PWs-1 to 15 and got marked 28 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-28 and had closed its side. The accused during the course of his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.PC., had denied the incriminating circumstances available on record against him. However, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence nor produced any documents. The Trial Court, thereafter, heard the arguments on both sides and by its judgment and order dtd. 23/8/2010 convicted the petitioner for the alleged offences and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Sec. 279 IPC, simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Sec. 337 IPC, simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sec. 338 IPC and simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.3,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, the petitioner had preferred Crl.A.No.74/2010 before the Appellate Court, and the said appeal was dismissed on 21/11/2013. It is under this factual background, the petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offences. He submits that the material on record do not disclose that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner, and on the other hand, the accident had taken place due to mechanical failure in the vehicle in question. He submits that undisputedly, the left front wheel of the vehicle in question was found detached from the vehicle and this was the cause for the accident in question. He submits that the prosecution has not examined CW-74 - Investigation Officer who was the material witness and this has seriously prejudiced the case of the petitioner and he has been denied the opportunity to confront the omissions and contradictions to the Investigation Officer. He submits that the Investigation Officer has not even prepared the rough sketch of the accident spot and even the Motor Vehicles Inspector has not visited the spot. He submits that the inspection of the vehicle in question was held after five days from