Appellant/accused feeling aggrieved by judgment

of first appellate Court on the file of I Additional

Sessions Judge, Belgaum, (hereinafter referred as

‘First Appellate Court’ for brevity) in criminal appeal

No.18/2013 dated 13.08.2014, preferred this appeal.

2.

Parties to the revision petition are referred

with their ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the

sake of convenience.

3.

The factual matrix leading to the case of

prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that

on 30.01.2011, the deceased Durgappa was rider of

motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22 X-4091 and

his brother was pillion rider. When they reached near

Macche village Darga, the driver of Maxicab bearing

registration No.KA-22/A-5678 came from opposite

side with high speed in rash and negligent manner and

dashed against motorcycle driven by Durgappa. Due

- 3 -

to said actionable negligence of driver of Maxicab

bearing registration No.KA-22/A-5678, the accident in

question has occurred and rider of the motorcycle

Durgappa was succumbed to the injuries sustained in

the accident and his brother PW.2 suffered injuries. It

is further alleged that accident in question occurred

due to actionable negligence of driver of Maxicab

bearing

registration

No.KA-22/A-5678.

On

these

allegation case was registered in crime No.352/2011

of Belgaum, Rural police station. The investigating

officer on completion of investigation filed charge

sheet.

4.

In response to the summons, accused has

appeared before the trial Court through counsel. The

trial Court after being prima-facie satisfied framed the

accusation against accused for the offences punishable

under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of Indian Penal

Code and Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act.

Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

- 4 -

5.

Prosecution in order to prove the accusation

leveled against accused relied upon oral evidence of

PWs.1 to 8 and documents Exs.P.1 to 11.

6.

On closure of the prosecution evidence,

statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C,

came to be recorded. Accused denied all the

incriminating material evidence appearing against him

and claimed that false case is filed. The trial Court

after appreciating evidence on record convicted

accused for the offences punishable under Sections

279, 337, 304(A) of IPC and Section 187 of M.V. Act

and imposed sentence as per order of sentence.

7.

Accused challenged the said judgment of

conviction and order of sentence before First Appellate

Court on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge,

Belgaum, in Criminal Appeal No.18/2013 dated

13.08.2014.

The

First

Appellate

Court

on

re-

appreciating

the

material

evidence

on

record,

- 5 -

dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by trial Court.

8.

Revision petitioner feeling aggrieved by

concurrent findings of both Courts below preferred this

revision petition contending that other then evidence

of P.W.2, who is pillion rider of motorcycle there is no

any evidence to corroborate the said evidence to

prove actionable negligence on the part of the accused

leading to the accident in question. The Courts below

have not properly appreciated the defence of accused

that

accident

has

occurred

due

to

actionable

negligence of accused in riding the motorcycle, due to

which accident in question has occurred. The Courts

below have committed serious error in relying on the

uncertified evidence of P.W.2 to hold that accused was

negligent in driving of Maxicab due to which accident

in

question

has

occurred.

The

approach

and

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by

both the Courts below and the findings recorded, are

- 6 -

not based on legal evidence. Therefore, prayed for

allowing the revision petition and to set-aside

judgment of both the Courts below. Consequently, to

acquit accused from accusation leveled against him.

9.

In response to the notice, learned HCGP has

appeared for respondent-State.

10. Heard the arguments of bot