The present petitioner was tried as accused by the

Court of learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bagepalli,

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

C.C.No.36/2010,

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 its judgment of conviction and order on

sentence

dated

30.05.2011

and

was

sentenced

accordingly.

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an

appeal in Criminal Appeal No.28/2011, before the learned

District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur, (hereinafter

for brevity referred to as the `Sessions Judge9s Court'),

which after hearing both side, dismissed the appeal filed

by the accused by its judgment dated 30.03.2012.

3

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 19.11.2009, at about 3.15 p.m.

near

Dasaiahgaripalya

Cross,

within

the

limits

of

complainant Police Station, the accused being the driver of

motor vehicle Tempo bearing registration No.KA-40-786,

drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed against the TVS-XL vehicle bearing registration

No.KA-40-E-5048 being ridden by one Sri Adinarayanappa,

thus, causing a road traffic accident. As a result of which,

said Adinarayanappa sustained injured and succumbed to

it on the spot. Thus, the accused has committed the

offences punishable under Sections 279 and 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

against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all

nine witnesses from PW-1 to PW-9 and got marked

4

documents from Exs.P-1 to P-9. However, neither any

witness was examined nor any documents were got

marked on behalf of the accused.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State

are physically present in the Court.

5. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the

materials placed before this Court, including the trial Court

and Sessions Judge9s Court9s records.

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

henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the trial

Court.

7. After hearing the learned counsel from both side,

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 offences

5

punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860, warrants any interference at the

hands of this Court?

8. The learned counsel for the accused in his

argument submitted that identity of the accused as the

driver of the alleged offending vehicle has not been

established by the prosecution. The accused is an

innocent person and that he has been falsely fixed in the

case. He also submitted that nobody from the Stone

Factory which was located nearby to the place of the

accident was examined and no reasons are forthcoming for

the same. He further stated that the IMV report is also not

believable. With this, he submitted that impugned

judgments of conviction deserves to be set aside.

9. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent in his argument submitted that identity of the

accused has been clearly stated by PW-3, an eye witness

to the incident. He also submitted that the owner of the

offending vehicle admittedly had taken the accused to the

police station and shown him as the driver of the offending

6

vehicle. Further, no documents were produced and no

witnesses were examined from the accused side to show

that it was not the accused, but, it was one Sri Babu, who

was said to be the driver of the alleged offending vehicle at

the time of the accident. He also stated that the evidence

of PW-3 - the eye