ORDER

The petitioner/accused, who has been convicted of offenses punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, is before this Court.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: On

24.04.2010, at approximately 3:15 p.m., the petitioner drove the Maxicab bearing registration number KA.30.5419 in a rash and negligent manner and collided with a car. As a consequence, the occupants of the Qualis car, namely C.Ws.3, 4, and 5, along with a female child, sustained injuries. The driver of the Qualis car, Shankar @ Veda Shankar, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to these injuries in the hospital on 25.04.2010.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to

11 and exhibited documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24(a). The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted the petitioner/accused for the aforementioned offenses. This conviction was confirmed by the Learned Sessions Judge, against which the present revision petition has been filed.

4. Sri. Dinakara Raj Rajath, learned amicus curiae for the petitioner, submits that the prosecution has alleged negligence on the part of the petitioner/accused. He argues that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accident was caused due to rashness. The learned amicus curiae contends that the prosecution has not proved that the accident occurred due to the rash driving of the petitioner/accused, which is a necessary element to convict a person under Section 304-A of IPC. Furthermore, he submits that the prosecution has not established that the accident took place as depicted in the spot mahazar at Ex.P3 and the sketch at Ex.P4. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accident was solely caused by the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner/accused. In support of his arguments, he relies on decisions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the following cases:

i. State of Punjab Vs. Balwinder Singh and others reported in (2012) 2 SCC 182.

ii. Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 9 SCC 284.

iii. State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182.

IV. And decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.RP.No.784/2015.

5. In contrast, the learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) for the respondent-State contends that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the petitioner/accused. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and have correctly passed the impugned judgment of conviction.

Therefore, the judgment does not warrant any interference.

6. The submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties have been considered, and the trial court records have been thoroughly reviewed.

7. P.Ws.1 to 5, who were the occupants of the Qualis car, are both eyewitnesses and injured witnesses. However, during their cross-examination, P.Ws.1 to 5 categorically stated that they only became aware of the accident after hearing the impact when the offending vehicle collided with the Qualis car in which they were traveling. These witnesses did not observe the accident firsthand and, therefore, could not conclusively state that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner/accused.

8. P.W.8, who was an occupant of the offending vehicle and worked as a cleaner, did not support the prosecution's case during cross-examination. However, he did state that the petitioner/accused was driving the offending vehicle at high speed and collided with the Qualis car, which was moving slowly. Notably, P.W.9 did not testify that the petitioner/accused was driving rashly at the time of the accident.

9. P.W.10, the Investigating Officer, conducted t