ORDER : ARAVIND KUMAR, J. 1. Accused in CC No.472 of 2012 was charged for offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A of the Indian Penal Code and offences punishable under Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is before this Court calling in question the judgment and sentence passed in C.C. No.472 of 2012 dated 15th May, 2015, where-under petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 279, IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of said fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, and under Section 338, IPC, sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Further, accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC, and for the offence under Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Criminal Appeal filed in Cri.A. No.62 of 2015 came to be dismissed by judgment dated 02nd December, 2015, confirming the judgment of trial court. 2. I have heard the arguments of Sri. B.N. Jamadar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader, who has been directed to take notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Perused the judgments passed by the Courts below. I find that there is no error committed by either of the Courts calling for exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court, for the following reasons. 3. The gist of prosecution case is that on 27th April, 2012 at about 11.00 a.m., on Kotur road within the jurisdiction of Garag Police Station, accused being the driver of Tata Ace bearing registration No. KA-25/D-1024 drove the same in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and dashed his vehicle to a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-25/EE-5380 causing grievous injuries to CW-6 and CW-7 and rider of the vehicle namely Sri. Gamappa died due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. Hence, charge-sheet came to be filed under Sections 279, 337, 338, 340A, IPC and Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Gamappa died due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. Hence, charge-sheet came to be filed under Sections 279, 337, 338, 340A, IPC and Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On behalf of prosecution, seven witnesses were examined and 15 documents came to be marked as Exs. P-1 to 15. However, no material objects were marked on behalf of prosecution. No witnesses were examined on behalf of accused in his defence. After appreciating the evidence lead by prosecution, trial court held that prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such, convicted the petitioner, as observed herein above. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgments and sentence passed by Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad, dated 15th May, 2015, a Criminal Appeal in 62 of 2015 was filed. After appreciating the evidence and examining the material on record in detail, appellate court found that there is no error committed by trial court and it came to be held that judgment of the trial court convicting the petitioner-accused and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment and pay fine is well reasoned. It is these judgments which have been called in question by the accused-petitioner. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for petitioner that Courts below erred in convicting the accused without considering the evidence in proper perspective and ignoring the bristling contradictions and infirmities in the evidence of prosecution. To buttress his arguments, he has relied upon the evidence of complainant-PW-1 (Sri. Ulavappa Ambannavar) who has stated in his cross-examination that he was unable to identify the accused person and this available admission on record has been ignored by Courts below. Hence, he prays for setting aside the judgments of Courts below and prays for accused being acquitted of the charges alleged against him. 6. Per contra, Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent-State supporting the judgments of Courts below, prays for dismissal of the petition contending that Courts below have not only taken the evidence of PW-1 into consideration but have also considered the evidence of PW-5 namely CW-9 who was the owner of offending vehicle used by accused to cause the accident in question, to arrive at just and proper conclusion and there is no error committed by Courts below in convicting the petitioner for the offences alleged against him. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after bestowing my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar, it does not detain this Court for long to brush aside the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner, for reasons more than one. 8. Firstly, insofar as the contention regarding material contradictions in the evidence of CW-1 i.e., complainant is concerned, it is pertinent to note that trial court while considering the evidence of CW-1 has noticed that he has been treated partially hostile and even in his cross-examination nothing has been elicited to discredit his original testimony, namely complainant having seen accused person at the spot. However, the very fact that he had not disputed in his cross-examination that there was no such accident in question that occurred on 27th April, 2012, the said contradiction being minor has been rightly ignored by trial court. 9. Secondly, after having noticed this contradiction in the evidence of CW-1, it has also taken note of evidence of PW-5 (i.e., CW-9) Sri. Imamsab Ganji, who is the owner of the vehicle which was used by accused to arrive at a conclusion that undisputedly, accused was driving the said vehicle on 27th April, 2012at about 11.00 am. Thus, no infirmities can be found in the judgment of trial court which came to be reconsidered or re-appreciated by appellate court. In fact, PW-2 Sri Rajanagouda Iranagoudr who is the panch witness to Spot Panchanama-Ex. P- 9 has also supported the case of prosecution. 10. That apart, mother of deceased-PW. 3 who is also an eye-witness to the accident in question has categorically stated that she was proceeding on the motor cycle with her son at the time of accident and she has supported the prosecution case. She has specifically stated that she along with her daughter and son were proceeding on the said motor-cycle near Kotur Road and Tata Ace vehicle came from opposite direction driven by accused in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their motor-cycle and due to impact, they fell down and sustained grievous injuries and her son succumbed at the spot. She has identified the accused present before the trial court as the driver of Tata Ace vehicle which was driven by him on the date of accident. She has identified the accused present before the trial court as the driver of Tata Ace vehicle which was driven by him on the date of accident. Suggestion made to her that she did not see the accused at the spot and in order to claim compensation she has falsely deposed, has been denied by her. 11. The sister of the deceased/PW-4 who was also an eye-witness has spoken on the same lines of her mother/PW-3. She has also identified the accused as the driver of Tata Ace vehicle at the time of accident. To corroborate this evidence, prosecution has tendered evidence of the owner of vehicle i.e., Tata Ace which was driven by accused, namely Sri. Imamsab Ganji as PW-5. He has categorically stated in his evidence that his vehicle was involved in the accident in question about two years prior to date of his deposition and police had seized the said vehicle. He has also specifically deposed before the trial court that accused was the driver of said vehicle as on the date of accident, i.e., offending vehicle. Thus, clearly pointing the guilt towards the accused. This Court finds no error or illegality in the judgments passed by the Courts below so as to warrant interference in exercise of Revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is rejected. In view of rejection of petition on merits, question of considering IA No.2 of 2016 does not arise. Hence, it stands rejected.