The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving resulting in death, corroborated by credible eyewitness testimony, and modified the sentence to a fine due to the accused's personal circumstances.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND)

This revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C. No. 532/2017 dated 11.01.2018 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur, and the order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 18/2018 dated 11.08.2020 by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri sitting at Ranebennur.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.11.2016, accused No.1, while riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-27/X-0480 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased Halanagouda Basanagouda Patil. As a result of the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed thereto. The charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 146 read with 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-10 and marked Exhibits P-1 to P-17. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The trial Court appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court held that accused No.1 was guilty of the offences punishable under Section s 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code . Accordingly, the Trial Court sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 304A IPC and imposed a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC.

4. Accused No.1 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 18/2018.

The Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the Trial Court, dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

5. Sri Pruthvi K.S., learned counsel for the revision petitioner, submits that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased and that the revision petitioner did not contribute in any manner to the alleged accident. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the offences beyond reasonable doubt, and that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are unsupported by cogent and admissible evidence.

6. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State, submits that the prosecution has established its case by examining PW-4, who is an eyewitness to the incident. It is contended that PW-4 has given a clear and complete account of the occurrence, thereby proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have recorded concurrent findings of fact, and no material contradictions have been pointed out before this Court to warrant interference.

7. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties and perused the record.

8. The evidence on record establishes that the alleged accident occurred on 01.11.2016 involving accused No.1. The death of Halanagouda Basanagouda Patil, as a result of grievous injuries sustained in the said accident, is not in dispute. The Trial Court, upon considering the evidence of PW-1 and the complainant, supported by Ex.P-3, has rightly accepted the prosecution’s case. The evidence of PW-4, an eyewitness to the incident, has been rightly relied upon by the Trial Court to conclude that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by accused No.1. Though PW-6, the pillion rider on the motorcycle o