The conviction for driving in a rash and negligent manner was upheld, observing that the prosecution sufficiently established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through eyewitness testimony.

ORDER :

RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.

Challenging judgment dated 07.12.2022 passed by I Addl. Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in Crl.A.no.141/2020 confirming judgment dated 23.07.2020 passed by Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere, in CC.no.389/2018, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, case of prosecution was, at about 4:00 p.m., on 14.03.2018, when Prathap was riding his motor cycle bearing registration no.KA-18-ED-6154 from Lakkavalli towards Maridibba on Tarikere - Lakkavalli road, accused - driver of Alto Car bearing registration no.KA-01-MC-5620 drove it in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, which led to collision between Alto Car and Motor Cycle, in which accident, Prathap sustaining severe injuries and died on spot. It was also alleged that accused stopped his car and ran away from spot thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (' IPC ' for short) and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act' for short). On investigation, chargesheet was filed for said offences.

3. It was submitted, accused appeared before trial Court and pleaded not guilty. During trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses and got marked Exhibits P1 to P14. Thereafter, incriminating material was explained to accused, which he denied and his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded.

4. It was submitted, prosecution had failed to establish commission of offences as alleged beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted, there was no sufficient material to establish PWs.2 and 3 had witnessed accident. It was submitted, when they stated about driver of Car stopping it and running away after accident and they were at distance of 60-70 feet, their identification of accused as driver of Car was doubtful. It was alternatively contended there was no negligence on part of accused in causing accident as deceased himself was responsible for accident. Despite same, trial Court convicted accused. It was further submitted, prosecution had neither alleged nor established antecedents. Hence, trial Court was not justified in imposing sentence of simple imprisonment (SI) for a period of one year for offence punishable under Section 304 -A of IPC along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of paying fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 30 days, which was excessive and called for interference.

5. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of B. Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka reported in 2008 (5) SCC 730, where punishment of SI for six months along with fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 304 -A of IPC , in case of fatal accident was affirmed, as an alternative prayer for reduction of sentence, in case this Court were to conclude that there was no scope for interference with finding on conviction.

6. On other hand, Smt.Anitha Girish, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State opposed petition. It was submitted, in order to substantiate charges, prosecution had examined 11 witnesses and got marked 14 exhibits and both Courts on detailed examination of entire material on record arrived at concurrent findings that accused was guilty of offences alleged. It was submitted, witnesses examined by prosecution included an eye-witness to accident in question, apart from other witnesses duly supporting prosecution. Thus, there was no scope for interference. On said ground sought for