This revision is filed challenging the judgment of

conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Yellapur in C.C.No.165/2006 dated 02.11.2007

whereby the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused

for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338,

304(A) of IPC read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1987 and by imposing fine as well as sentence of

imprisonment and confirmed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar in Crl.A.No.234/2007 vide

judgment dated 14.08.2013.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

are referred with the original ranks occupied by them

before the Trial Court.

3.

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

that the accused was the driver of lorry bearing

registration No.KA-26/4454 and on 19.09.2005 he was

driving the lorry from Hubballi towards Ankola of Karwar-

- 3 -

Bellary National Highway No.63. Near Domgeri cross in

Yellapur Taluka at about 6.00 p.m. he drove lorry in a rash

and negligent manner endangering to human life and lost

control over the vehicle and moved on the wrong side and

dashed against the Toyota Innova Car bearing registration

No.MH-43/50 coming from Ankola side towards Hubballi

and then dashed to Mahindra Scorpio Car bearing

registration No.KA-25/ME-8 which was following Toyota

Innova car resulted in death of two persons and causing

injuries to other inmates of the two cars. In this regard,

on the basis of the complaint, the investigating officer has

submitted the charge sheet and after trial, the learned

Magistrate has convicted the accused by passing the

following sentence:

“Accused is found guilty for the offences

punishable u/secs. 279, 337, 338 and 304[A] of IPC

& 187 of M.V. Act as per the power given to this

court u/sec. 255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.

Accused is sentenced to under to Simple

Imprisonment for a period of three months and to

pay a fine of Rs.800/- for the offence punishable

u/sec. 279 of IPC. In default of payment of fine

- 4 -

amount, he shall further under to S.I. for a period of

ten days.

Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.400/-

and Rs.1,000/- for the offences punishable u/secs.

337, 338 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he

shall further undergo S.I. for a period of ten days

and twenty days respectively.

Accused is sentenced to under go Simple

Imprisonment for a period of six months and

punishable u/sec. 304(A) of IPC. In default of

payment of fine amount, he shall further under to

S.I. for a period of twenty days.

Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/-

for the offence punishable u/sec. 187 of M.V.Act. In

default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo

S.I. for a period of five days.

All

the

substantive

sentences

shall

run

concurrently.

Supply free copy of judgment forthwith.

His P.B. and S.B. stands cancelled.”

4.

The said judgment of conviction and order of

sentence was challenged before the learned Sessions

Judge and learned Sessions Judge has rejected the appeal

by confirming the judgment of conviction. Against these

concurrent findings, this revision petition is filed.

- 5 -

5.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for

the respondent/State. Perused the records.

6.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner

would contend that the accused was driving lorry slowly,

but it was heavily loaded with goods and since there was

raining, the driver of the cars in order to overtake each

other caused the accident and hence, he would contend

that the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court

failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in

proper perspective. Hence, he would seek for allowing the

appeal by setting aside the impugned judgments passed

by both the Courts bellow. Alternatively, he would seek for

remission of the sentence of imprisonment by enhancing

the fine.

7.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader would contend that the accused moved his vehicle

on