The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; assumptions cannot replace evidence in criminal convictions.

ORDER :

G BASAVARAJA, J.

The revision petitioner/accused has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in CC No.1738/2013 dated 06.12.2017 which is confirmed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A.No.2/2018 dated 14.03.2022.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision petition are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to this revision petition is that the SHO, Padubidri Police submitted a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 , 338 and 304(A) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . It is alleged by the prosecution that on 24.02.2013 at about 1.30 p.m., near Ermal Board School, Ermal Village within the jurisdiction of Padubidre Police Station, the accused being the driver of Maruthi car bearing registration No.MH- 01-AX-5056 drove the same from Udupi towards Mangaluru side on NH-66, in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and when he reached Ermal Board School, he drove the car to the extreme right side of the road and dashed against one Sadiya Sadaf and Sayina Farvin who were standing by the side of the road, as the result of the said accident, Sayina Farvin has sustained injuries and Sadiya Sadaf has sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries, thereby the accused committed an offence under Sections 279 , 338 and 304(A) of IPC. After submitting the charge sheet, case was registered in CC No.1738/2013. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined, in all, eight witnesses as PWs1 to 8 and 17 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to 17. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

5. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 , 338 and 304A of IPC and passed sentence.

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused/ revision petitioner had preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.2/2018 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi. The same was dismissed on 14.03.2022. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court in CC No.1738/2013 which was confirmed by the Appellate Court, the revision petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition.

7. Learned counsel for revision petitioner/accused submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is confirmed by the Appellate Court is illegal, unreasonable and opposed to law and facts. The Trial Court has totally misread the evidence on record and discrepancies which found in the evidence of PWs.1 to 8.

8. In the evidence of PWs.1 to 8, out of which PWs.1 to 4 are eye-witnesses, have not supported the case of the prosecution and marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17. Even after treating them as partly hostile witnesses, they have categorically denied that the accused being the driver of car bearing registration No.MH-01-AX- 5056, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to elicit any favourable answers fro