Heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel

appearing for the State.

2.

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution

before the Trial Court that on 06.12.2013 at about 3.00 p.m.

on State Highway-169 (Mangalore-Moodubidre), passing in

front of Gurupura Satyadevatha Temple, Muloor Village, the

petitioner was riding motorcycle bearing No.KA-19-ED-3386

towards Moodubidre in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed against the pedestrian i.e. victim by name Srinivas

Shenoy who received the fatal injuries and ultimately he died

on 7.12.2013.

3.

The accused appeared and denied the accusation

and hence, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses as PWs.1 to

10. Out of that prosecution relies upon the evidence of PWs.1

to 3 as eyewitnesses to the incident and PW4- is M.V.

Inspector, PWs.5 and 6 are witnesses to spot mahazar (Ex.P.2),

P.W.9 is the owner of alleged offending motorcycle and PWs.7,

8 and 10 are the Investigating Officers.

- 3 -

4.

The Trial Court having considered both oral and

documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that this

petitioner has caused the accident, as a result the victim

succumbed to the fatal injuries accepting the evidence of PW1

as well as pW9 and also though PWs.2 and 3 partly turned

hostile, considering the evidence with regard to an accident is

concerned and they are the witnesses to the accident convicted

the petitioner for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and

sentenced him for six months and imposed fine of Rs.1,000/-.

He was also imprisoned for a period of one yar for the offence

punishable under Section 304A of IPC and fine of Rs.5,000/-

and in default 30 days in respect of the offence punishable

under Section 279 of IPC and two months in respect of the

offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC.

5.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction,

an appeal is filed in Criminal Appeal No.229/2015. The

appellate

Court

also

having

considered

the

oral

and

documentary evidence available on record particularly the

evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and P.W.9 the owner of the vehicle and

also considering the document Ex.P12, since PW9 admits the

signature available at Ex.P12, wherein the name of the rider is

- 4 -

mentioned as Rizwan, though he says that the vehicle was

given to one Izaz and in terms of Ex.P12 he has mentioned the

name of the petitioner. All these materials are considered by

the First Appellate Court and confirmed the judgment of the

Trial Court. Hence, this revision petition is filed before the

Court.

6.

The main contention of the counsel appearing for

the petitioner before this Court that the judgment of conviction

passed by the Trial Court and confirmation made by the First

Appellate Court is against the records. The evidence of PW1

cannot be believed since he is a interested witness. Inspite of

the same is elicited in his evidence, the same has been relied

upon and also there was a delay of one day in lodging the

complaint and no proper explanation is given for delay. The

counsel also would submit that the evidence of PWs.2 and 3

also very clear that though they contend that they were

present at the place of accident, when the accident was

occurred, but one of them in their evidence say that PW1 was

also present and he took the injured to the hospital. The

counsel also would vehemently contend that though PW1

claims that he took the injured to the hospital and no intimation

- 5 -

was given to the police and also counsel would submit that the

hospital records are also not seized and placed before the Trial

Court and hence both the Trial Court as well as the First

Appellate Court committed an error in relying upon the

evidence of the prosecution. The counsel also vehemently

contend that even though PW9 evidence is concerned and he

categorically says that one Izaz has taken the vehicle, not the

Rizwan and Rizwan is the petitioner and he has not mentioned

the name of Rizwan. Hence, there is a contradictions in the

evidence of prosecution witnesses and hence, this Cour