The court's findings and sentence were based on the following legal principles: - The prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. - The accused has a right to remain silent and is not required to provide an explanation for his conduct. - However, if the accused fails to provide a reasonable explanation for his conduct, the court may draw an adverse inference from that failure. - The sentence imposed by the court must be proportionate to the severity of the offense.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner

and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent.

2.

The accused, who has suffered an order of

conviction in C. C.No.198/2018 confirmed in Criminal

Appeal No.20/2012 is before this Court in this revision.

3.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

Upon a complaint lodged by one Sri Bhimaraya

(PW.1), Yadgiri Rural police registered a case in Crime

No.73/2011

against

the

accused

for

the

offences

punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section

181(3) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short

3

‘IMV’ Act’). In the complaint, it is contended that on

26.04.2011 at about 7.00 p.m. near Chamnalli Tanda, the

accused being the rider of the motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-32/V-5673 without having a valid

driving licence, dashed against a autorickshaw bearing

registration No.KA-33/8487, whereby, one of the inmates

of the autorickshaw namely, Kireteppa lost his life and

other inmates sustained injuries. After registration of the

case, police after thorough investigation, laid a charge

sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

4.

The learned trial Magistrate after securing the

presence of the accused, framed charges. The accused

pleaded not guilty and accordingly, trial was held.

5.

In order to prove the case of the prosecution,

prosecution in all examined ten witnesses as PWs.1 to 10

and relied on thirteen documents, which were exhibited

and marked as Exs.P1 to P13.

4

6.

On conclusion of the prosecution evidence,

accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313

of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein, accused has denied all

the incriminatory materials found against him. However,

the accused did not choose to place his version on record

either by examining himself as witness or by placing any

written submissions on record.

7.

Thereafter, the learned trial Judge appreciating

the material evidence on record passed an order of

conviction, convicting the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC and

under Section 181(3) of IMV Act and passed the following

sentence:

Offences

Imprisonment

Fine

Default

sentence

Section 279

of IPC

Three

months

simple

imprisonment

Rs.750/-

Simple

imprisonment

for fifteen days

Section 337

of IPC

One

month

simple

imprisonment

Rs.400/-

Simple

imprisonment

for eight day

Section

304-A

of

IPC

Six

months

rigorous

imprisonment

Rs.1,000/-

Simple

imprisonment

for one month

Section

181(3)

of

IMV Act

-

Rs.300/-

Simple

imprisonment

for seven days

5

8.

Being

aggrieved

by

the

said

conviction

judgment, the accused preferred an appeal before the

District Court at Yadgiri in Criminal Appeal No.20/2012.

The learned Judge in the first appellate Court after

securing the records and hearing the parties in detail by

judgment dated 12.07.2016 dismissed the appeal and

confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by

the learned Trial Judge. Being aggrieved by the same, the

accused has preferred this revision petition.

9.

In the revision petition, following grounds have

been raised:

A. "The impugned orders passed by both the

Court below are illegal, arbitrary, contrary to

law and records of the case and besides

being against the principles of natural

justice.

B. It is submitted that in the absence of cogent

evidence to point out the guilt of petitioner,

the courts below committed a mistake in

convicting the petitioner.

C. Both the courts below have not applied their

mind to the facts of the case and also to the

6

evidence on record which has led to passing

of the judgment impugned in this criminal

revision petition.

D. The both the courts below failed to note that

the PW.1 to 5 and PW.7 to 10 have given

admission to show that due to rash and

negligent on the part of tom tom vehicle the

accident took place which has not been

properly considered by the court below.

Which as resulted in convicting the petitioner

for the