ORDER : This revision petition is preferred by the revision petitioner-accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 4.5.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC, Malavalli in C.C.No.143/2006 so also the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.01.2011 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crl. A. No.64/2009. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.05.2005 at about 05:45 p.m., Shankar, Puttaswamy and the complainant were walking on the left side of the road, 2 furlongs away from the village. At about 05:55 p.m., a tractor bearing No.KA.09/T.920 came from Kundoor side in a rash and negligent manner and at over speed, dashed against the cycle ridden by Manjunatha, son of Nagaraj aged about 9 years. The boy fell on the road along with bicycle and the wheels of the tractor, ran over his body. There was instant death of minor Manjunatha. The driver of the tractor ran away from the place of accident. Due to rash and negligent driving by the accused, the accident has occurred. On the basis of the complaint, the case came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The prosecution examined seven witnesses and produced the documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.6. On the side of the defence, neither any witnesses adduced evidence nor any document were produced. After considering the materials placed on record before the trial Court, it ultimately convicted the revision petitioner-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, when the petitioner-accused preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court, the appeal came to be dismissed. Hence, the revision petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-accused and also learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 5. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-accused, during the course of arguments, made submission that looking to the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1, 2 and 7, there is inconsistency in their evidence. There are contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He also made submission that the deceased was a boy aged 9 years old at the time of accident. There are contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He also made submission that the deceased was a boy aged 9 years old at the time of accident. The deceased was at fault when he was proceeding holding the milk can in one hand and holding the handle of the cycle in another hand. Therefore, himself lost the balance and fallen down. The tractor, which was coming from behind the cycle, driven by the accused, could not hold the break of the tractor and ran over the boy and the accident took place. The learned Counsel submitted that there is no rash and negligent driving by the revision petitioner-accused i.e., driver of the tractor. It is also his contention that looking to the sketch produced in the case, particularly on the road, goes to show that the deceased was in the middle of the road and was not on the left side of the road. This itself goes to show that the incident is because of the fault committed by the deceased boy himself. The learned Counsel further made submission that in the said incident, there is also contribution of the deceased boy and the entire fault cannot be put on the accused person. The prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 have admitted that the deceased boy was riding the bicycle holding the milk can on the one hand and the cycle handle with another hand. On the basis of this evidence, the learned Counsel submitted that the deceased fell from the bicycle and it was because of his own negligence. It is also his contention that the accused-driver of the tractor was coming slowly and not drove the tractor in rash and negligent manner. Hence, these important material aspects were not property considered by the trial Court/first appellate Court. There is wrong reading of the evidence and the trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted that the prosecution has not proved this case beyond all reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused person. 6. There is wrong reading of the evidence and the trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted that the prosecution has not proved this case beyond all reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused person. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP made submission that looking to the oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution, three eye witnesses, including the complainant, have consistently deposed that they have seen the accident and it was because of the driver of the tractor, who drove the tractor in rash and negligent manner, dashed the bicycle of the boy from behind. Due to the impact, the boy fell down and the wheel of the tractor ran over the head of the deceased. Hence, he made submission that this evidence of three eye witnesses is consistent. There is nothing on record to show that they are falsely deposing before the Court in favour of the prosecution. It is also the submission of learned HCGP that conduct of the accused person is more important in appreciating the case and the defence of the accused person. When the accused has been examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., opportunity was given to the accused to explain the mode and manner in which the accident took place, for which he had not explained. The learned HCGP made submission that on the basis of the evidence on record, both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the material and rightly came to the conclusion in convicting the accused for the said offence. Hence, he submitted to dismiss the revision petition. 7. I have perused the grounds urged in the revision petition, the judgment and order of the trial Court so also the judgment and order of the first appellate Court. I have also considered the argument points submitted by the learned Counsel on both sides at the Bar. 8. The accident is not in dispute even according to the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. According to his contention, it is because of the fault by the deceased boy himself and not because of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the accused. The contention of the learned Counsel for the defence is that the boy was riding the cycle, carrying the milk can with one hand and handle of the cycle with another. The contention of the learned Counsel for the defence is that the boy was riding the cycle, carrying the milk can with one hand and handle of the cycle with another. As the boy lost balance, he fell on the ground. About this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused, there is no satisfactory material placed by the accused before the trial Court. It is no doubt true that during the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, it was suggested that the accident was because of the fault of the deceased himself, the eye witnesses have denied the said suggestion. So far as the fault on the part of the accused-driver of the tractor is concerned, there is positive evidence on the side of the prosecution, which is worth believable. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have referred to the evidence of prosecution witnesses extensively. Considering each and every aspect of the matter, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion in convicting the accused for the said offences. Even in the examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., when we look into question No.7, the Court asked the accused as to whether he wanted to say anything more, for that the accused said ‘nothing’. As per question No.8, he was asked as to whether he wanted to lead evidence on his behalf, for that also, the accused said ‘no’. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that if the accused remains silent, that cannot be taken that he is at fault. But in the accident cases, the accused-driver of vehicle will be the more proper and the competent person to speak as to how the accident has taken place and this was within the knowledge of the revision petitioner-accused. Therefore, whenever opportunity is given to the accused to explain the things, the accused has to explain as to how the accident has taken place. But in this case, the accused has not at all given any explanation when he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. So far as the evidence of the eye witnesses is concerned, the trial Court has properly appreciated their evidence holding that in the cross examination, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the case of prosecution. But in this case, the accused has not at all given any explanation when he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. So far as the evidence of the eye witnesses is concerned, the trial Court has properly appreciated their evidence holding that in the cross examination, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the case of prosecution. This proceeding being the revision petition, as the scope is limited so far as the factual aspect is concerned, unless and until grave illegality has been pointed out to this Court, this Court cannot interfere with the entire material before this Court. 9. Looking to the materials placed on record and also considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel on both sides at the Bar, no such illegality has been committed by the Courts below. There is no justifiable and valid grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below either to modify or to set aside the conviction. 10. I have also perused the materials so far as the sentence imposed by the Courts below. Looking to the nature of the offence and the gravity of the offence, the sentence imposed by the Courts below is proper and reasonable. No merits in this revision petition and the same is hereby rejected.