O R D E R

Heard Sri Srinivas S.R., learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, and Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, 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 22-10-2012 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Srinivaspur, in Criminal Case No.308 of 2009 and confirmed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, in Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2012 dated 29-4-2015.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking 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 5-7-2009 at about 1:45 p.m. near Kondamari Gate, the accused, being the driver of Tata Sumo, bearing Registration No.AP-04 B-6161, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from Thadigol Cross to Gownipalli and dashed against a motorcycle, bearing Registration No.KA-07 J-5904, which was coming from opposite direction. Thus, he caused grievous injuries to PW2- Venkatalakshmamma, who was a pillion rider and caused death of Sri Ravi Kumar, who was a rider of the said motorcycle. 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, 338 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 nine witnesses as PW1 to PW9 and got marked ten documents as per Exs.P1 to P10. Based on oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of the IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2012 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; none of the witnesses has stated that the accused committed an offence, 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 offence; 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 is a poor man doing coolie work for his living. Hence, on all these grounds, he prays to allow the revision petition.

7. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State has contended that since the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have given concurre