ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding of Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court.

3. The factual matrix of case of prosecution that on 24.07.2013, the accused being the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No. KA 17 EJ 0601 drove it at around 4.30 p.m., on the Honnali Thumminakatte road from Thumminakatte towards Honnali in a high speed rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. CW16-Mr.Vasanthanaik was a pillion rider of the motor cycle ridden by the accused. When the motor cycle came near Srinidhi Daba the accused dashed to another motor cycle bearing registration No.KA 17 EG 0076 which was coming from the opposite direction from Honnali towards Thumminakatte.

Due to the impact of the accident between two motor cyclists, both the motor cyclists fell down and sustained injuries. The rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No. KA 17 EG 0076 Mr.Annappa sustained grievous injuries on his head hands and cheek. CW16 also sustained grievous injuries. Both the injured were taken to government hospital at Honnali and later to Nimhans hospital and Shivamoga. Mr.Annappa did not respond to the treatment and victim died on 25.07.2013. The police have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the present revision petitioner invoking the offence punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PW2 who is an eye witness and PW6 also is an eye witness. Both of them given the evidence that the revision petitioner who came in the opposite direction came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the victim, as a result both of them sustained injuries. No doubt the PW5 who has been examined before the Trial Court who is also the occupant of vehicle depose that the accident is an account of negligence of the victim.

4. Having perused the evidence of PW2 and PW6 and they have re-iterated with regard to the manner in which an accident has taken place. In the cross- examination of PW2 and PW6, nothing is elicited. However, the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that the evidence of PW2 and PW6 cannot be believed. Both the Courts have committed an error in convicting the revision petitioner and it requires interference.

5. The counsel appearing for the State would submits that PW2 and PW6 evidence is consistent with regard to the accident is concerned. Nothing is elicited from their to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court also taken note of Ex.P5 IMV report. Both the vehicles have sustained damages. Hence, it does not requires any interference. The counsel also submits that even appellate Court also assessed the evidence available on record and considering the evidence of PW2 and PW6 and also the IMV report which is marked as Ex.P5 and particularly in paragraph No.25 discussed the same that IMV report discloses that the said accident was not due to the mechanical defect of the vehicles and also noticed the damages caused the vehicle.

6. Having heard the counsel for revision petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondent-State and also looking into the evidence of PW2 and PW6 who are the eye witnesses and also their evidence is also very clear that immediately after the accident, both the injured i.e., PW5 and also the victim are shifted to hospital. Taking into note of evidence of PW2 and PW6, nothing is elicited from the mouth of these two witnesses to disbelieve the evidence of them and revisional scope of the Court is very limited and only material evidence is not considered and then Court can exercise revision jurisdiction, whether the order impugned suffers from any legality and its correctness. Apart from that documentary evidence of Ex.P5 –IMV report is also very clear that both the vehi