ORDER : Budihal R.B., J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8-11-2011 passed in Cri. A. No. 35 of 2011 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mysore, confirming the judgment dated 11-2-2011 passed in C.C. No. 932 of 2003 by the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore. By the said judgment and order of conviction, the revision petitioner-accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 134(a) and 134(b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The revision petitioner-accused has challenged the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Courts below on the grounds as mentioned in the petition. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-accused submitted that though it has come on record that the contents of the complaint-Ex. P. 1 are narrated by one Military Officer, but complaint has been filed by P.W. 2 who was the driver of the military vehicle; the said Military Officer who prepared the complaint has not been examined before the Court. It is further submitted that though it is the case of the prosecution that the revision petitioner-accused caused the accident because of rash and negligent driving of his vehicle, but the materials placed on record shows that the tyre marks on the road at the spot of the accident were not at all mentioned either in the spot mahazar-Ex. P. 2 or in the sketch Ex. P. 31. In the absence of such tyre marks on the road, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. He has submitted that the sketch-Ex. P. 31 said to be prepared by the Investigating Officer is not correctly prepared with regard to the position of the vehicle at the spot immediately after the accident. This aspect has not been appreciated by the Trial Court, so also, by the Appellate Court. It is submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not consistent and is self-contradictory with each other. This aspect has not been appreciated by the Trial Court, so also, by the Appellate Court. It is submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not consistent and is self-contradictory with each other. Even though the materials show that two traffic police were at the spot when the accident took place, but the Investigating Officer has not examined those two traffic police. This is a material defect in the investigation of the case. It is also his submission that there is variance in the averments in the complaint, so also, the evidence of P.W. 2, the complainant, but the Trial Court has wrongly observed that it is not the material variance. Lastly he has submitted that even though at the time of his examination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the accused has not explained as to how the incident has taken place, but later, he has filed a detailed statement explaining the things and even with regard to that the Trial Court has observed that it is at the belated stage and it was not at all filed immediately after recording his statement under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. Hence, he has submitted that on all these grounds, the matter may be admitted. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that there were totally six deaths in the case and there are so many injured eye-witnesses. The accident is admitted. It is also established that the revision petitioner was the driver of the said vehicle who caused the accident. Looking to the entire materials placed on record by way of oral as well as documentary evidence, the prosecution has satisfactorily established the charges against the revision petitioner-accused and hence, there is no merit in the revision petition and accordingly, he has sought for to dismiss the same. 6. I have perused the materials placed on record. 7. Looking to the entire materials placed on record by way of oral as well as documentary evidence, the prosecution has satisfactorily established the charges against the revision petitioner-accused and hence, there is no merit in the revision petition and accordingly, he has sought for to dismiss the same. 6. I have perused the materials placed on record. 7. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 3-4-2003 at about 12.40 p.m. on Mysore-Bangalore road near Varuna Channel, the accused being the driver of the Maxicab bearing Registration No. KA 11/A 1819 drove the vehicle in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner from Pandavapura towards Mysore and he overtook the bus which was going in front of his vehicle and came to the extreme side of the road and dashed to the front side of the military truck which was driven by C.W. 1 from Mysore side to Bangalore and due to rash and negligent act of the accused, both the vehicles were damaged and deceased Ningamma and Jayamma who were traveling in the Maxicab sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. There were some other persons also who sustained grievous and simple injuries and some injured persons succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. On these allegations, ultimately, the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the alleged offences. 8. Looking to the material placed on record, the prosecution has established the fact that the revision petitioner-accused was driving the said Maxicab. Though during the course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses it was suggested to some of the witnesses that he was not driving the said vehicle, but the injured witnesses have deposed in their evidence that the petitioner was driving the vehicle at that time. The owner of the said vehicle P.W. 12 was also examined before the Trial Court. He has clearly deposed that he gave his vehicle to revision petitioner-accused and that petitioner was driving the vehicle. Looking to these materials they clearly show that petitioner-accused was driving the said vehicle at the relevant point of time. 9. The owner of the said vehicle P.W. 12 was also examined before the Trial Court. He has clearly deposed that he gave his vehicle to revision petitioner-accused and that petitioner was driving the vehicle. Looking to these materials they clearly show that petitioner-accused was driving the said vehicle at the relevant point of time. 9. Looking to the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court, the factual aspect of rash and negligent driving of revision petitioner is consistently established by the judgment of both the Courts that the accused while driving his vehicle in order to overtake the bus which was in front of his vehicle, came to the extreme right side of the road, wherein from the opposite direction military vehicle was coming, due to which, the accident has occurred in between the two vehicles and ultimately, the complaint was lodged against the revision petitioner who was the driver of the Maxicab. 10. Though it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the petitioner wanted to file a complaint against the driver of the military vehicle, but the police have not received the same and no materials were placed before the Trial Court about these aspects. Therefore, without there being satisfactory material, this contention, at the stage of revision petition, cannot be accepted. 11. Perusing the materials placed on record, it goes to show that the revision petitioner while overtaking the bus which was moving in front of his vehicle, came to the extreme right side of the road and caused the accident. The witnesses have explained in their evidence about this aspect. The spot mahazar-Ex. P. 2 and the sketch drawn by the Investigating Officer as per Ex. P. 31 are consistent with each other. The Trial Court has considered each and every aspect of the matter extensively, both oral and documentary, and has rightly come to the conclusion that the revision petitioner accused is responsible for causing the accident. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court is supported by sound reasons, which has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court on reappreciation of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, regarding the factual aspect of causing accident because of rash and negligent act by the revision petitioner herein. There are concurrent findings of the Courts below. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court is supported by sound reasons, which has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court on reappreciation of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, regarding the factual aspect of causing accident because of rash and negligent act by the revision petitioner herein. There are concurrent findings of the Courts below. I do not find any illegality committed by the Courts below in coming to such conclusion. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court, is in accordance with the materials placed on record. There are no grounds for this Court to interfere into the judgment and order of the Trial Court at this stage. There is no merit in this revision petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.