The scope of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is limited to addressing manifest errors or legal bar against proceedings, emphasizing that revisional courts cannot review evidence as appellate courts do.

ORDER :

VENKATESH NAIK T, J.

Heard Sri M.R. Nanjunda Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, and Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

2. The petitioner-accused has filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 16-06-2014 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malur, in Criminal Case No.107 of 2013 and confirmed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar, in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2014 dated 24-8-2016.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. The petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the complainant-State.

4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 31-12-2012 around 1.00 p.m., at Malur-Hosur Main Road, near divider situated in front of Taluk Office, Malur, the accused, being the driver of autorickshaw, bearing registration No.KA-03/4164, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle, bearing Registration No.KA-08 Q-8753, which was coming from opposite direction. Thus, the first informant-Narasimha Murthy and pillion rider-Shankarappa sustained severe injuries, and Shankarappa succumbed to the injuries. Hence, PW1 lodged a complaint. This led to registration of F.I.R. and the Investigating Officer investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ' IPC ').

5. After receipt of the charge-sheet, the trial Court took cognizance of the offences and recorded plea of the accused. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and got marked twelve documents as per Exs.P1 to P12. Based on oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC . Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2014 before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has contended that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are contrary to law, facts and evidence. However, the trial Court has come to a wrong conclusion and convicted the accused; the trial Court convicted the accused on surmises and conjunctures without appreciating the true and material facts that have been placed before it; some of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are not eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and they have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, however, the Courts below have failed to take note of this fact. Hence, he prays for extending the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused; there is no direct evidence produced by the prosecution and it has failed to prove that the accused committed the alleged offences; there are many contradictions, inconsistencies and variations in the evidence of one witness to another, there is no corroboration in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, however, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have not taken note of these contradictions in the evidence; the prosecution has failed to produce the report regarding the vehicle tyre marks on the road, where the accident took place and the concerned photographs of the accident spot; the accused