The prosecution must conclusively prove rashness or negligence to establish criminal liability for driving offences; mere claims of high speed are insufficient without supporting evidence.

ORDER :

1. Accused is before this court in this Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Turuvekere in C.C.No.332 of 2009 dated 19.06.2014 and the judgment and order dated 08.11.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10012/2014 by the Court of V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Petitioner herein was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC & Section 134(A) and (B) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in C.C.No.332 of 2009. It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.02.2009, at about 8.30 p.m. when PW.1 and 2 were standing near Harikaranahalli gate, the tractor bearing registration No.KA-06-T-7190 which came from Turuvekere side, dashed against the two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-44-H-4295, in which deceased Sannarangegowda S/o Nanjundegowda, was riding and as a result, Sannarangegowda, who had suffered grievous injuries in the accident in question, had succumbed to the same subsequently when he was being shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru at about 10.30 p.m. on 20.08.2009. The petitioner in response to the summons received by him in C.C.No.332 of 2009 had appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its allegation against the petitioner, had examined seven charge sheet witnesses before the Trial Court as PWs.1 to 7 and got marked eight documents as Exs.P1 to Es.P8. Three material objects were got marked as MOs.1 to 3. No defence evidence was led on behalf of the petitioner nor was any document got marked in support of his defence. The trial Court after recording the statement of the petitioner/accused as provided under Section 313 of CrPC, heard the arguments addressed on both sides and vide the impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2014 passed in C.C.No.332 of 2009, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 279, 304A of IPC and Section 134(A) and (B) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner had filed Criminal Appeal No.10012 of 2014, which was dismissed by the Court of V Additional District and Section Judge, Tiptur on 08.11.2016, confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two concurrent judgments and orders of conviction and sentence, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the material on record does not prove that the petitioner was driving the offending tractor in a rash and negligent manner on the alleged date of incident. He submits that prosecution has failed to prove that petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner on the alleged date of incident. He submits that there is an inordinate delay in filing the FIR, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution in the present case. PWs.1 and 2 have identified petitioner/accused for the first time in the Court. Considering the material on record it appears that PWs.1 and 2 were planted as eye witnesses to the accident in question. Accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and submits that the Courts below are justified in convicting the petitioner for the charge sheeted offences. Even the sentence imposed is just and proper. Accordingly, prays to d