The judgment emphasizes the need for conclusive evidence to establish criminal negligence in cases of rash and negligent driving, highlighting the principle of res ipsa loquitur and the imperative duty of a driver to exercise reasonable care and precaution.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This revision was filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Dharwad in C.C.No.290/2007 dtd. 4/6/2011 and confirmed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad in Crl.A.No.55/2011 vide judgment dtd. 9/11/2012 whereby the accused-revision petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 279 and 304(A) of IPC.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the Trial Court.

3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the accused is the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus No.KA25/F 2070 and on 30/4/2007 he drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner on Corporation Road, near Kalabhavan at 01:10 p.m. and while taking turn in high speed, the passenger Vidyavati Patil, who was in the bus thrown out from the front door of the bus and she fell down and sustained injuries. She was immediately shifted to the hospital, but she succumbed because of the injuries subsequently. In this regard a complaint came to be lodged and crime was registered. The investigating officer visited the spot drawn the scene of offence, mahazar and also recorded the statement of the witnesses and then he submitted the charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 279 of IPC Sec. and Sec. 304A of IPC. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the said offences and summons have been issued to the accused. The accused has appeared and was enlarged on bail. He was also provided prosecution papers. The accusation was read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined in all 6 witnesses and also placed reliance on 7 documents.

4. After conclusion of evidence of the prosecution, the statement of accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. is recorded to enable the accused to explain incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case of the prosecution. The case of the accused is of total denial and he did not choose to lead any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence. After hearing the arguments and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 279 and Sec. 304(A) of IPC. He has imposed fine of Rs.800.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 279 of IPC. However, for the offence under Sec. 304(A) of IPC the learned Magistrate has imprisoned him for 6 months and imposed fine of Rs.1, 000.00. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has approached the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad in Crl.A.No.55/2011. The learned Sessions Judge by reappreciating the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence vide judgment dtd. 9/11/2011. Being aggrieved by these concurrent findings, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Perused the records.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and have failed to note that, the alleged incident has occurred prior to approach of the bus stand and while the bus was approaching the bus stand, the deceased intended to get down and, in a hurry, she fell down which has resulted in fatal injuries and she succumbed subsequently. He would contend that the evidence on record clearly establish these aspects. In support of this case, he has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2000 part-7 SCC page No.72. Hence, he would seek for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the Courts be