The prosecution must prove negligent conduct beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts can lead to acquittal for criminal charges, even if other offenses are upheld.

ORDER :

(G. BASAVARAJA, J.)

This revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Civil Judge and J.M.FC, Holenarasipura in CC.No.645/2009 dated 18.03.2013, (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short ) which is confirmed by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.74/2013 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan dated 07.12.2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court').

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 giving rise to this revision petition are that, the Circle Inspector of Holenarasipura submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of INDIAN PENAL CODE , and Section 3 (1)read with 181 and 146 read with 196 of Indian MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (hereinafter referred to as 'IMV' Act for short).

4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 22.06.2009 at 5.30 p.m., near the Thattekere bus stop of Holenarasipura-Channarayapatna road, the accused rode Hero Honda CD 100 motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-13-K-206 with one Krishnamurthy as a pillion rider, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the rear side of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-13-F-1730 which was going towards Channarayapatna. Due to the said accident, the pillion rider Krishnamurthy sustained grievous injuries on his head and he succumbed to the injuries at NIMANHS Hospital, Bangalore on 25.06.2009. The accused was not having any driving license for driving the motor cycle and he has also had no insurance for the said motor bike and thereby, the accused has committed the aforesaid offences.

5. After filing charge sheet, the jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The case was registered in CC.No.645/2009 and in response to summons, accused appeared before the Trial Court and enlarged on bail. The substance of plea was recorded, having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried .

6. To prove the case of prosecution, in all, 15 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW15, 10 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded, the accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. He has not adduced any defence evidence, however during the course of cross examination of PW6, PW7 and PW9, Ex.D1 to D3 were marked.

7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC , and Section 3 (1) read with 181 and 146 read with Section 196 of IMV Act sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC . The accused is further sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- or in default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of INDIAN PENAL CODE . The accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of the fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonm