Revisional jurisdiction must not re-evaluate factual evidence but correct manifest legal errors, ensuring justice is served without infringing on trial court determinations.

ORDER :

1. Though the matter is listed for 'Admission', with the consent of the learned counsel for both parties, the matter is taken up for 'Hearing'.

2. Heard Sri Hemantha B., learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

3. 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.') praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 13-3-2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arakalagud, in Criminal Case No.850 of 2013 and confirmed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Criminal Appeal No.134 of 2020 dated 2-12-2022, wherein both the Courts have passed concurrent findings against the petitioner and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Section 134 (a) & (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

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

5. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 24-3-2013 at about 10.30 a.m., near Balajinagar Cross of Ganganalu Village, Gorur-Holenarasipura Road, within the limits of Arakalagud Police Station, one N.K. Darshan, rider, and PW5-Sandeep, pillion rider, were proceeding in a motorcycle, bearing Registration No.KA-13 EA-788, at that time, the accused, being the driver of Ape autorickshaw, bearing Registration No.KA-13 A-9663, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of Darshan. Due to the said impact, Darshan and PW5 sustained grievous injuries. On the way to the Hospital, Darshan succumbed to the injuries. This led to registration of F.I.R. and investigation.

6. The Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

7. Soon after initiation of charge-sheet, the trial Court took cognizance under Section 190 (1)(a) of the Cr.P.C.

8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined in all nine witnesses as PW1 to PW9 and got marked fifteen documents as per Exs.P1 to P15. Soon after completion of the prosecution evidence, the trial Court recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The case of the accused was of total denial.

9. The trial Court, on conclusion of the trial, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has contended that the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in a proper perspective. Though eyewitness to the incident, spot and seizure mahazars witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the trial Court convicted the accused on uncorroborated testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. As per Ex.P1-complaint, Ravi, son of Nanjegowda, was