This revision petition is filed by the petitioner-applicant

under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for setting aside

the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by

the

Principal

Civil

Judge

and

JMFC,

Jamakandi

in

C.C.No.16/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections

279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and the

same was up held by the Fast Track Court, Jamakandi

(hereinafter referred to as ‘first Appellate Court’) in Criminal

Appeal No.11/2012 dated 31.12.2012.

3

2.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

3.

The ranks of the parties before the Trial Court is

retained for the convenience of the Court.

4.

The case of the prosecution is that the Savalgi

Police Station, Jamakandi filed the charge sheet against the

petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections

279 and 304A of IPC alleging that on 15.10.2009 near

Kawatagi Cross, near the land of the complainant, the accused

being the driver of the tractor bearing No.AP-28/U-3686 and

trailer numbers KA-28/T-833 and KA-28/TA-2503 drove the

same in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human

life and dashed to the son of the complainant Gaibusab

Sikhandar Kudachi who was coming on bicycle from the

opposite direction, due to which he sustained injuries and died

on the spot. After registering the case, the Police arrested the

petitioner, he was released on bail and the charge sheet came

4

to be filed by the Police. The plea was recorded in which the

accused denied the charges and claims to be tried.

Accordingly, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and got

marked 14 documents at Ex.P.1 to P.14. After completion of

the evidence, the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has

been recorded. The accusations are one of the total denial by

the accused and he entered in defense by examined himself as

DW-1, but no documents were marked. After filing the written

arguments by the accused counsel, the Trial Court has passed

the judgment of conviction and sentence to undergo simple

imprisonment for six months and imposed fine amount of

Rs.8,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A of

IPC and sentenced to undergo for simple imprisonment for

three months and imposed fine amount of Rs.1,000/- for the

offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. Being aggrieved

by the same, the petitioner approached the Sessions Judge in

Criminal Appeal No. 11/2012, which came to be dismissed.

Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

5

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended

that both the Courts below committed the error in conviction

of accused, even though there is no eye witness to the

incident. They projecting the PWs-2, 6, 7, 8 and 11 as

witnesses they are came to the spot after the accident. Even

the PW-11 said that he came to the spot at 3.00 p.m. that the

accident was occurred on 1.30 p.m. The PW-2 father of the

deceased was in the land, after the accident he came to the

spot by that time he found the accused on the spot, though

he has said in the complaint at Ex.P.3 as eye witness but he

has not seen the accused on the spot, he has seen him only in

in the Police Station and even when he has not seen the

accused. PW-7 who is the uncle of the deceased also not seen

the incident, he came to the spot after hearing noise of the

people. There is no evidence to show the accused was driven

his tractor in rash and negligent manner. The case of the

accused is that the deceased came in bicycle after seeing the

child he stopped the tractor, the child himself fell down and

6

caused injuries on the head which cause to death. Suspecting

the case, the evidence of DW-1 categorically stated that there

is no negligence on his part. The same was not considered by

both the Courts below and hence they convicted the accused.

Hence he prayed for allowed the petition.

6.

Per contra, the learned High Court Governm