The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of rash and negligent driving, leading to the restoration of the trial court's acquittal.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)

This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in Criminal Appeal No.82/2012 dated 02.03.2018 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karwar (sitting at Sirsi), Itinery Court at Yallapur, as the judgment of acquittal passed in CC No.211/2011 dated 28.02.2012 by the JMFC, Yallapur wherein the accused was charge sheeted by the Yallapur Police for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC .

2. Parties to this revision petition are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for convenience.

3. According to the case of the prosecution, the present petitioner-accused was charge-sheeted by the Police Inspector of Yallapur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC on the ground, that the accused herein on 05.09.2011 at about 7:00 PM, on National Highway No.63 near Chikamavalli Cross, being the driver of the car bearing Registration No.KA-30/M-3528 drove his car in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life, lost control over the car and moved to the extreme right side of the road and dashed to the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA- 31/Q-1384 and as a result of which, the rider and pillion rider fell down. The pillion rider of the said vehicle Smt. Swetha Sridhar Nayak, sustained grievous injuries and died in the hospital. With these allegations, a complaint came to be filed and the crime was registered against the accused for the aforesaid offences in Crime No.178/2011. Thus, criminal law was set in motion. The investigation officer, after conclusion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

4. The jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the offences, presence of the accused was secured and he was enlarged on bail.

5. Substance of accusation came to be framed, read over to the accused in Kannada, in the language known to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. Before the trial Court, to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution, in all examined 8 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to P.Ws.8 and got marked documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.10 with respective signatures thereon. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D1 and D2 came to be marked during the course of cross-examination. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. so as to enable him to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. He denied his complicity in the crime and he did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.

7. The learned trial Magistrate after hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, found that the accused is not guilty of the offences and thereby passed an order of acquittal of the accused for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC . Being aggrieved by same, the State preferred appeal before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karwar, sitting at Sirsi, in Criminal Appeal No.82/2012. The first Appellate Court, on hearing the arguments and on reassessment of the evidence found the accused guilty of committing the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and sentenced him as under:-

“Acting U/s 255(1) of Cr.PC., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/s.279, 304A of IPC .

The accused is sentenced to undergo SI for period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.304A of IPC ., in default, SI for one month.”

This is how now the accused is before this Court by filing this revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the accused-revision petitioner, Sri. Ganapathi Bhat submits that, the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and found that there was no rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver and none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and rightly