The principle of 'Res ipsa loquitur' applies in cases of negligence where the circumstances of the accident imply the driver's fault, and the burden of proof shifts to the accused to provide an explanation.

JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition is filed by the accused under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.1055/2009 on the file I Additional JMFC, Chitradurga and confirmed in Criminal appeal No.60/2013 by the Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga vide judgment dtd. 30/10/2013.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to their ranking occupied by them before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to the case are that: The accused was driver of bus bearing registration No.KA- 16/D-3595. On 5/1/2009, he drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed the same to road side tamarind tree near Madakaripura valley resulting in death of Annapurnamma and Ashok Shetty who were the inmates of the bus and simple as well as grievous injuries to the other passengers traveling in the bus.

4. On the basis of the complaint, the investigating officer has investigated the crime and submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC.

5. After submission of the charge sheet, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and summons has been issued to the accused. The accused has appeared and was enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers were also furnished to him. The plea for the offence under Ss. 279 and 304A of IPC is framed against him and the same is read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 16 witnesses and also placed reliance on 32 documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P32.

7. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case of prosecution and the case of accused is total denial. He did not choose to lead any oral or documentary evidence in support of his case.

8. After having heard the arguments and perusing the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC by imposing simple imprisonment for period of one year with fine of Rs.5, 000.00 with default clause for the offence punishable under Sec. 304A IPC only.

9. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has approached the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Crl.A.No.60/2013. Learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court vide order dtd. 31/10/2013.

10. Being aggrieved by these concurrent findings, the accused is before this Court by way of revision.

11. Initially, the revision petitioner was represented by counsel. Since the counsel did not appear before the Court, amicus curiae is appointed vide order dtd. 5/6/2023.

12. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned amicus curiae and the learned HCGP appearing for State.

13. Learned amicus curiae would submit that the evidence on record does not inspire the confidence of Court regarding rash and negligent driving on the part of the revision petitioner and he further asserts that the sentence of one year is too harsh. Hence, he would seek for remission of sentence in case of conviction needs to be confirmed.

14. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that due to actionable negligence on the part of the accused, two persons suffered fatal injuries which has resulted in their death and number of persons suffered simple as well as grievous injuries. He also invited attention of this Court with regard to sketch of scene of occurrence and also further asserts that the identity of the accused is undisputed so as to set up defence regarding he driving the vehicle at the time of accident. He would further submit that