ORDER By judgment dated 16.08.2007 in C.C.No.133/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) and JMFC, Gudibanda, the revision petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment. The conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner has been confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.35/2007 on the file of the Fast Track Court at Chickaballapura by judgment dated 29.04.2010. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below, this revision petition is preferred under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. 3. The petitioner was the accused before the Magistrate. The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night between 08.05.2005 and 09.05.2005 at about 2.30 am, the accused being a driver of lorry bearing Reg.No.KA02D2556, drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and thereby he lost control over his driving and as a result, lorry dashed against a road side tamarind tree and thereafter toppled. As a result of the accident, as many as six persons travelling in the lorry died on the spot, whereas four persons were injured. A complaint came to be lodged by one of the injured Narayanaswamy (PW1) on the strength of which, a case came to be registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC and upon investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed against the accused the driver of the lorry for the aforesaid offences. The accused having denied the charges levelled against him, the prosecution in order to prove the charges examined as many as 29 witnesses as PW1 to PW29 and marked Exs.P1 to P23. After the closure of the prosecution side, the incriminating circumstances that cropped up during the course of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses have been put to the accused by way of his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. so as to give him an opportunity to explain. The accused has not led defence evidence. After the closure of the prosecution side, the incriminating circumstances that cropped up during the course of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses have been put to the accused by way of his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. so as to give him an opportunity to explain. The accused has not led defence evidence. Learned Magistrate having heard the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and upon going through the entire evidence placed on record both oral and documentary, by judgment dated 16.08.2007 convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 304A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months, one month, and one year respectively. Criminal Appeal No.35/2007 filed by the accused challenging his conviction and sentence by the Magistrate came to be dismissed by judgment dated 29.04.2010 by the Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court at Chickaballapura. Hence, the accused is before this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused would submit that though the prosecution has examined number of witnesses and marked number of documents, it has failed to establish the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry beyond reasonable doubt. Further, it is submitted that by invoking the doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur, the accused has been convicted, which is not permissible in criminal case. Learned counsel has also submitted before me that the identity of the accused as the driver of the said lorry is also not established and the learned Magistrate based on the statement made by the owner of the lorry, has convicted the accused and hence, he sought to allow the revision petition and to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below. 6. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit before me that the prosecution by cogent and convincing evidence of the injured eyewitnesses not only proved the negligence on part of the driver of the lorry, but also established the identity of the accused as the person who was driving the lorry at the time of the accident beyond reasonable doubt and rightly the learned Magistrate recorded a finding to that effect has passed the judgment of conviction and sentence which has been confirmed by the Sessions Judge and there is no reason to call for interference by this Court. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 7. In view of the submission made by both the learned counsel, I have examined the entire material placed on record so as to find out whether the finding recorded by the Courts below as to the negligence of the driver and identity of the accused as driver of the lorry at the time of the accident is based on the evidence on record. It is borne out from the records that the prosecution examined as many as 29 witnesses. It is not in dispute that in the said accident, six persons died on the spot and four persons were injured. 8. PW1Narayanaswamy is one of the injured person in the said accident who lodged complaint as per Ex.P1. He went on record to say that on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry in question it went of the road and dashed against the road side tamarind tree and thereafter toppled and consequently, six persons who were travelling in the lorry died on the spot and four persons were injured. PW1 has very clearly stated that the accident and resultant death of six persons and injuries caused to the four persons is on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. But, in the cross-examination, he states that he has not seen the person who was driving the lorry at the time of the accident. Therefore, his evidence will be of no assistance so as to establish the identity of the accused as the driver of the lorry, though it is relevant so far as negligence of the driver is concerned. 9. PW2Shakara is another injured person who was travelling in the said lorry. He states that the accused caused the accident. Therefore, his evidence will be of no assistance so as to establish the identity of the accused as the driver of the lorry, though it is relevant so far as negligence of the driver is concerned. 9. PW2Shakara is another injured person who was travelling in the said lorry. He states that the accused caused the accident. PW3Venkataramana is also yet another injured in the said accident. He has also spoken about the negligence of the driver of the lorry. Both PW2 and PW3 have disclosed in their evidence the identity of the accused as the driver of the said lorry and because of his own negligence the accident occurred. 10. PW4 is Adilakshmamma, whose husband Venkatarangareddy died in the accident. She was also travelling in the said lorry along with her husband. Her evidence would also go to show that because of the rash driving the lorry dashed against the road side tree and thereby she sustained head injuries and injury on her face. She also made it clear that because of the negligence of the driver, the accident occurred. In the cross-examination, she has stated that she has not seen the person who was driving the lorry. PW5 Chandrashekara Reddy and PW6Keshavareddy are the other two persons who were travelling in the said lorry. Their evidence is that because of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, the accident occurred. 11. PW7 to PW20 are all panchas to the inquest panchanama over the dead body of the six persons who died in the said accident marked as Exs.P3 to P8. PW21 Lakshminarayanachari is the Pancha to the spot panchanama. But, he has not supported the case of the prosecution. 12. PW22Sundararaj is the owner of the lorry in question involved in the accident. His evidence is that upon receipt of the information, he came to the spot of the accident and saw the lorry which was dashed to a road side tree. The suggestion made to him that the accused was not driving the lorry at the time of the accident and some other person was driving has been denied by him. 13. PW23Dr. Prakash is the doctor who conducted the Postmortem Examination over the dead bodies of six persons and issued Postmortem Report marked as Exs.P9 to P14 and issued wound certificate Exs.P15 to P19 for having examined the injured persons. 13. PW23Dr. Prakash is the doctor who conducted the Postmortem Examination over the dead bodies of six persons and issued Postmortem Report marked as Exs.P9 to P14 and issued wound certificate Exs.P15 to P19 for having examined the injured persons. PW24 K. Narasimhamurthy is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the lorry involved in the accident and gave his report as per Ex.P20, wherein he opined that the accident was not due to mechanical defect. 14. PW25 Sulthanabeg, PW26 Thimmaiah and PW27 Sannathimappa are the Police Constables who forwarded the dead bodies to the hospital for Postmortem Examination. PW28 Sadappa is the Head Constable of Gudibande Police Station, who went to the mortuary of Government Hospital and signed the inquest panchanama. PW29 Shanthappa is the PSI of Gudibande Police Station who spoken about the investigation and filing of the chargesheet against the accused person. 15. Though the prosecution has examined number of witnesses, the important witnesses are PW1 to PW6, who are all eyewitnesses to the accident, since all of them were travelling in the said accident at the time of the accident and they sustained injuries. All of them have categorically stated in their evidence that the accident and resultant death of six persons is on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the accused. PW2 and PW3 have also categorically stated in their evidence that it is the accused who was driving the lorry. Moreover, the lorry went of the road and dashed against the tamarind tree. As such, there is sufficient evidence to speak not only the negligence of the driver of the lorry but also to show that the accused was driving the said lorry at the time of the accident which caused death of six persons on the spot and injuries to various other persons. Learned Magistrate upon proper appreciation of the evidence has recorded a finding to that effect which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of the evidence confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate. There is no substance in the revision petition filed by the petitioner and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I pass the following order. Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.