ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.09.2013 in C.C.No.2080/2005 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Bhadravathi and the judgment and order dated 08.10.2015 in Crl.A No.246/2013 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, Sitting at Bhadravathi, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner / accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 134 (a) and (b) r/w 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act (for short “IMV Act”).

2. The rank of the parties in the Trial Court will be considered henceforth for convenience.

Brief facts of the case:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.03.2005 at about 6.25 a.m., at Kudli Cross, Holehonnur Hobli, Bhadravathi Taluk when the father-in-law of PW.1 and PW.2 were going together for walking, the accused being the driver of the Canter lorry bearing its registration No.AP-02-U-8599 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to Sri.Laxmi Narayana Bhatt from the backside, as a result, the said Sri.Laxmi Narayana Bhatt sustained grievous injuries and later on, he succumbed to the said injuries. On the same day, a complaint came to be registered by PW.1 and the jurisdictional police have registered a case in Crime No.35/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC and Sections 134 (a) and (b) r/w 187 of IMV Act. The jurisdictional police have conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and got marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to P16. On the other hand, the accused has neither examined any witnesses nor marked any documents. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record recorded the conviction for the above said offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction. However, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.

5. Heard Smt.Rachita Nanaiah.M and Sri.Balasubramanya B.M, learned counsels for the petitioner and Sri.Rahul Rai.K, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are contrary to the evidence and also the law. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. It is further stated that PW.1 has not identified the driver of the vehicle and also has not stated the manner in which the accident occurred. PWs.2, 3 and 4 are the witnesses to spot mahazar and eyewitnesses but they have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.11 being an owner of the canter lorry has not stated about the identity of the driver. PW.1 says that he was not aware who was driving the vehicle. Such being the fact, convicting the petitioner on the ground that he was driving the canter lorry on the date of the alleged incident appears to be erroneous and not proper. Therefore, the said concurrent findings are required to be set aside. Making such submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State vehemently justified the concurrent findings and submitted that PW.1 being an eyewitness to the incident has stated that on 27.03.2005 when he was going along with his father-in-law for walking, the vehicle bearing No.AP-02-U-8599 came from Holehonnur side towards Shivmogga, dashed his father- in-law from behind and fled away from the spot without stopping the vehicle. He stated to have registered a case as per Ex.P1. The registration number of the lorry has been mentioned in the complaint. The petition