ORDER

The accused-Revision Petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13th February, 2015 passed in CC No.328 of 2013 (for short hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") which is confirmed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Hassan in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2015 vide order dated 07th December, 2016 (for short hereinafter referred to as the "appellate Court").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to with their status and rank before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 18th December, 2012, at Angadihalli, at about 11.30 am, the deceased Akkamma was standing by the side of the road. At that time, the accused being the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-41-242 to the said lorry reverse in a rash and negligent manner and without observing the said Akkamma, dashed to her resultantly, the left rear wheel of the lorry passed over her left leg, then she succumbed to the injuries while being shifted to the hospital. Thereafter, Investigating Officer filed charge sheet for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. After taking cognizance, case was registered in CC.No.328 of 2013 and after issuance of summons accused appeared and obtained bail. Charges were framed, and the same were read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 09 witnesses as PWs1 to 9 and got marked eleven documents as Exhibits P1 to P11. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and the accused has denied all the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution but has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for commission of offence punishable under Section 279 Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs.1,000/-. The accused was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for commission of offence punishable under Section 304A and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred appeal before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Hassan in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2015. The Appellate Court, vide judgment and order dated 07th December, 2016 dismissed the appeal.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

8. Sri Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate, as well as the Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. He submits that as per the complaint averments, it is the allegation that the accused, while taking the lorry reverse, has dashed against the deceased. But it is specifically admitted by the complaint in his cross-examination that the accused was taking lorry reverse in the small road where it cannot be driven in high speed, so also, in a rash and negligent manner, the same is evident from the spot mahazar and other material on record. Hence, it is apparent that since deceased was aged 75 as on the date of accident and was having vision problem she herself contributed for the accident by standing behind the lorry knowing that the lorry was coming reverse. Hence, there is no negligence on the part of the revision petitioner and he is not respons