The present petitioner was tried as accused by the

Court of learned Prl.Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Ramanagara,

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as the `trial Court') in

C.C.No.431/2008, for the offences punishable under

Sections 279, 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as the `IPC') and was

convicted by the judgment of conviction and order on

sentence

dated

21.11.2011

and

was

sentenced

accordingly.

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an

appeal in Criminal Appeal No.54/2011, before the learned

Presiding

Officer,

Fast

Track

Court,

Ramanagara,

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as the `Sessions

Judge9s Court'), which after hearing both side, dismissed

3

the appeal filed by the accused by its judgment dated

25.02.2013. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused

has preferred the present revision petition.

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the

trial Court was that, on the date 29.03.2008, at about

11.00 a.m., near a place called Ramadevara Pada on

Bengaluru-Mysuru Road, within the limits of complainant-

Police Station, the accused having driven his motorcar

bearing registration No.KA-03-MC-2926 in a rash and

negligent

manner,

dashed

to

one

Sri

Cheluvappa,

a pedestrian, due to which road traffic accident, the said

Cheluvappa sustained multiple injuries on his body and

succumbed to the same before he was taken to hospital

and thereby the accused has committed the offences

punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC.

3. The accused appeared in the trial Court and

contested the matter through his counsel. The accused

pleaded not guilty. As such, in order to prove the guilt

4

against the accused, the prosecution got examined five

witnesses from PW-1 to PW-5 and got marked documents

from Exs.P-1 to P-6. However, neither any witness was

examined nor any documents were got marked on behalf

of the accused.

4. The respondent - State is being represented by the

learned High Court Government Pleader.

5. The trial Court and the Sessions Judge9s Court9s

records were called for and the same are placed before this

Court.

6.

Heard

learned

Senior

Counsel

for

the

accused/revision

petitioner

and

learned

High

Court

Government Pleader for the respondent - State who are

physically present in the Court.

7. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be

henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the trial

Court.

5

8. After hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader

for the respondent, the only point that arise for my

consideration in this revision petition is:

Whether the concurrent finding recorded by

the trial Court, as well as the Sessions Judge9s Court

that the accused committed the alleged offence

punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860, warrants any interference at the

hands of this Court?

9.

Learned

Senior

Counsel

appearing

for

the

petitioner in his arguments submitted that there is

variation with respect to time of the accident. According to

PW-1, it was at 1.00 p.m., according to PW-2, it was at

12.00 noon and according to PW-3, it was at 23.00 hours,

whereas, PW-4 has stated that the complaint was received

by him at 11.45 a.m., which complaint at Ex.P-1 mentions

the time of occurrence of accident at 11.00 a.m.

Therefore, the said variation is a major variation affecting

the credibility of the case of the prosecution.

6

He further submitted that the prime witnesses to

prove the case of the prosecution were CW-9 - Motor

Vehicle Inspector and CW-10 - Doctor, however, neither of

them were examined by the prosecution, as such also, the

case of the prosecution suffers with laches. Learned

Senior Counsel further submitted that the speed is not only

the criteria to decide the alleged rash driving. There is no

accuracy about the alleged speed of the motorcar since the

Motor Vehicle Inspector was not examined by the

prosecution. He further submitted that none of the

prose