This

revision

petition

is

filed

challenging

the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

26.10.2010, passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC,

Bagalkote, in C.C.No.366/2010, and the judgment dated

19.3.2013, passed by the District and Sessions Judge,

Bagalkote, in Crl.A.No.90/2010 convicting and sentencing

the accused/petitioner for the offences punishable under

sections 279, 304A of IPC.

2.

The accused/revision petitioner was convicted

by the trial Court and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine

of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under section 279

of IPC and also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for

the offence punishable under section 304A of IPC. The

revision petitioner preferred the appeal. The criminal

appeal was partly allowed. The learned Sessions Judge

3

modified the sentence of imprisonment from one year to

six months for the offence under section 304A of IPC and

also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence

punishable under section 279 of IPC. Aggrieved by the

same, this revision petition is filed.

3.

Heard Smt.Deepa J., the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of Shri Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Girija Hiremath, the

learned HCGP for the respondent State and perused the

records.

4.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner

argued that the judgment of conviction passed by both the

Courts are not based on proper appreciation of evidence.

There is no eye witness to the incident. The prosecution

not proved the spot of accident. It is stated that the

accident has taken place on highway and there are speed

breakers. Therefore, the question of rash and negligent

driving does not arise, because one cannot drive the

vehicle in a rash manner over the speed breakers. The

Courts have not considered the circumstances in which the

4

accident took place. The learned counsel argued that while

overtaking the lorry which was parked on the road, where

there were speed breakers; the boy dashed to the bus. The

petitioner was not rash and negligent in driving. Hence the

order of conviction cannot sustain. The Courts have not

given proper reasons. The learned counsel argued that the

petitioner is working as KSRTC driver and the evidence of

all witnesses show that just to help the family of the

deceased to get compensation they are deposing. Hence,

the learned counsel argued to acquit the accused by

setting aside the conviction as it is not based on evidence

on record.

5.

Against this, the learned HCGP argued that

both the Courts have concurrently held that accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its

driver.

Admittedly

the

hand

sketch

and

the

spot

panchanama shows that the accident occurred on the

extreme right side of the road and that itself shows that

the driver of the bus took the vehicle to the extreme right

side and dashed to the boy. The learned HCGP also argued

5

that the eye witnesses have supported the prosecution

case. Both the Courts have rightly appreciated the

evidence in a proper perspective and found the revision

petitioner guilty of the offence and rightly convicted him.

Hence the said order of conviction and sentence needs no

interference by this Court.

6.

I have perused the impugned judgment of the

trial Court and also the Sessions Judge. Perused the

evidence on record.

7.

The revision petitioner who was the accused

before the trial Court was the driver of the offending

vehicle bearing registration No.KA-28/F-1320 on the date

of accident is not disputed and the death of the boy due to

injuries sustained to his head is also not disputed. The

learned

Sessions

Judge

though

he

is

required

to

re-appreciate the evidence of witnesses being the first

appellate Court, has not discussed in detail the evidence

and in one sentence he has stated that PW.1-Chidanand

lodged the complaint and while enquired, he came to know

that the