This petition is filed by the revision petitioner accused

under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for

short) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by JMFC, Mandya in C.C.No.651/2012 and

confirmed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Mandya in

Crl.A.No.54/2014 vide judgment dated 31.08.2015.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred with original ranks occupied by them before the trial

Court.

3.

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that

on 19.03.2012 at 2.30 p.m. in front of Sanjo hospital on

Bangalore-Mysore Road, the accused being the driver of goods

tempo bearing registration No. KA-11/7729 drove it in a rash

and negligent endangering human life and public safety and in

the said process, he hit a pedestrian by name Nagaraju who

was standing adjoining the divider near a U-turn along with

his bicycle so as to cross the road and then the vehicle

3

climbed over the road divider and over turned, as a result, the

lady by name Rajamma who was standing on the road divider

came beneath the vehicle and succumbed because of this

accident. In this accident, Nagaraju has also sustained simple

injuries and immediately after the accident, accused did not

attend the injured by providing any medical aid to them and

fled from the spot. In this regard, a complaint was lodged and

on the basis of the complaint, the Investigating Officer

investigated the crime and submitted the charge sheet against

the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279,

337 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred

to as ‘the IPC’ for short) and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act.

4.

After submission of the charge sheet, the learned

Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued process against

the accused. The accused has appeared through his counsel

and was enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers were also

furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207

of Cr.P.C. The plea of accused was also recorded and he

denied the same.

4

5.

The prosecution has examined in all, 5 witnesses

and also placed reliance on 9 documents marked at Ex.P1 to

Ex.P9. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the

statement of 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 accused is of total denial. The accused has also submitted a

written statement along with his statement recorded under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C claiming that he was driving the vehicle

from Bengaluru towards Mandya and in front of Sanjo

Hospital, he was driving on the right side of the road and at

that time, Nagaraju suddenly tried to cross the road and in

order to avoid the collision, he applied the brake and tried to

take the vehicle on the right side, as a result, the vehicle

climbed the road divider and hit Rajamma who was standing

on the road divider resulting in the accident and thereby he

disputes his negligence. However, accused has not led any

oral evidence, but he got marked Ex.D1, which is the

photograph of the place of accident.

5

6.

After hearing the arguments and after appreciating

the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate

has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under

Section 279, 337, 304A of IPC and Section 187 of MV Act. He

imposed sentence of fine for the offences punisahble under

Sections 279 and 337 of IPC as well as for the offence under

Section 187 of M.V.Act. However, he imposed imprisonment

for a period of 1 year for the offence under Section 304A of

IPC.

7.

This judgment of conviction and order of sentence

came to be challenged by the accused before the II Additional

Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crl.A.No.54/2014. The learned

Sessions

Judge

after

re-appreciating

the

oral

and

documentary evidence dismissed the appeal by confirming the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence pa