The driver of a vehicle must exercise a duty of care to avoid causing injury to pedestrians, and failing to do so constitutes actionable negligence.

ORDER

This revision is filed under Section 397 R/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C .) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class II Court, Belagavi in C.C.No.498/2012 dated 29.05.2013 whereby the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused-revision petitioner herein for the offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) which is affirmed in Crl.A.No.91/2013 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi vide judgment dated 29.04.2015.

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, on 15.06.2012 the accused was the driver of the Cruiser Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-22/N-7539 and he drove the said Jeep in a rash and negligent manner near Valmiki Mandir of Bastawad village at around 6.30 p.m. and dashed his vehicle to a boy namely Sanket Aanji aged about 4 years who was standing by the side of the road causing fatal injuries to him, who succumbed on the spot and thereby it is alleged that accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. On the basis of the complaint lodged, the investigating officer visited the scene of offence, drawn the spot mahazar, he has also recorded the statements of material witnesses and after completing the investigation, he has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences. After submission of the charge sheet the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences. The accused has appeared in pursuance of the summons issued to him that he was provided with the prosecution papers. The accusation was read over and explained to him and he was pleaded not guilty.

4. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 7 witnesses as PW.1 to 7 and has also placed reliance on 14 documents marked at Ex.P.1 to 14. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C . is recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case of the prosecution. The case of the accused is of total denial and he did not choose to lead any oral or documentary evidence in support of his evidence.

5. After having heard the arguments and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. He has imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC with default clause and for the offence under Section 279 of IPC he imposed the simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months with a fine of Rs.500/-.

6. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused-revision petitioner herein has approached the I Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.A.No.91/2013. The learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence has dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 29.04.2015.

7. Being aggrieved by these concurrent findings, this revision petition is filed.

8. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-accused and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Perused the records.

9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that there is no actionable negligence on the part of the revision petitioner and as procession was going on at the time of