The prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence proving the accused's rashness or negligence, leading to the overturning of convictions for death by negligence under sections of the IPC and Motor Vehicles Act.

ORDER :

G. BASAVARAJA, J.

The revision petitioner/accused has preferred this Revision Petition against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08th July, 2015 passed in CC No.164 of 2012 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”), which is confirmed by the Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the “Appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2015 dated 27th June, 2017.

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

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 22nd December, 2011 at about 6.30 pm, near field of Kakka Rangajja Thippeswamy of Adavichikkenahalli within the jurisdiction of Challakere Police Station, the driver of RTS bus bearing registration No.KA-16-9696 drove the same in a rash and high speed and while so proceeding, all of a sudden, applied the brake. As a result, the inmate of the bus Jayanna S/o Erappa who was standing near the door, fell down from the bus and sustained grievous head injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Challakere Government Hospital and thereafter to Government Hospital, Chitradurga; later, to SS Hospital at Davanagere. But the injured, not responding to the treatment, died on 31st December, 2011 at 3.30 pm. It is stated in the complaint that after the accident, the accused fled from the spot without taking reasonable steps of securing medical assistance to the injured or taking him to the nearest hospital. Thus, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 279 , 304A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE read with Section 187 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988. After filing the charge sheet, the trial Court has taken cognizance and registered a case in CC No.164 of 2012, summons was issued. In response to summons, accused appeared before the trial Court and enlarged on bail. The substance of accusation under Section 251 of Code of Criminal Procedure was read over and explained to the accused. The accused having understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the guilt of the accused, eleven witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 11 and marked twelve documents as Exhibits P1 to P12. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and the accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution evidence. But the accused has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.

5. Upon hearing the arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A of INDIAN PENAL CODE read with Section 187 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.700/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and further sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of sixty days for the offence punishable under Section 304A INDIAN PENAL CODE and further accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default to pay the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five days for commission of offence punishable under Section 187 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred appeal before the Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2015. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 27th June, 2017. Being aggrieved by judgment of conviction of both the courts blow, the accused is before this Court in this Revision Petition.

6. Sri B.M. Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, submits that the ju