The court upheld the conviction for causing death by negligence but modified the sentence, enhancing the fine while setting aside imprisonment based on the victim's age and circumstances.

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.09.2020 passed in C.C.No.583/2015 and confirming the same in Crl.A.No.10003/2020 dated 28.10.2021.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that this petitioner on 10.09.2015 at about 3.00 p.m. drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the pedestrian – Hanumamma who was proceeding on the very same road, as a result, the victim who aged about 80 years passed away. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case and investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet and accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and hence, the prosecution mainly relies upon the evidences of PW1 to PW6 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P14 and accused was subjected to 313 statement and he did not lead any defence evidence.

4. Having considered the material on record, it discloses that that the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW1 who is the son of the deceased and PW2 is the eye witness and PW3 is the owner of the tractor who also deposes that this petitioner was driving the tractor on the date of incident and other witnesses are mahazar witnesses and IO. Having considered the material on record, the Trial Court convicted the accused and imposed Rs.10,000 with two years imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and Rs.1,000/- with six months imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and the said judgment of the Trial Court was confirmed by the First Appellate Court by re- appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts fail to take note of the material on record since the evidence of PW1 is none other than son of the deceased; PW2 also the relative of PW1. PW3 admits in his cross-examination that they are the relatives. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the victim was aged about 80 years at the time of incident and specific defence was taken that on account of age factor, the victim had fell down and sustained injury and this petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and the said fact has not been appreciated by the Trial Court.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State would vehemently contend that when PW1 and PW2 are the eye-witnesses to the incident, their evidence is credible and nothing is discredited in the cross- examination of PW1 and PW2. PW3 is also the owner of the tractor and he says that this petitioner was driving the vehicle on the date of incident and hence, it does not require any interference.

7. In reply to the arguments of the counsel for the State, the counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that this Court can take lenient view considering the age of the deceased i.e., 80 years at the time of the incident and the age of the petitioner is about 42 years at the time of the incident and even this Court can modify the order and direct the petitioner to pay the compensation instead of undergoing for imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court.

8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are;

1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC and the First Appellate Court committed an error in confirming the order of the Trial Court and whether this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction?

2. What order?

Point No.1:

9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that there are charges leveled against the pe