ORDER : R. Devdas J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Kunigal in C.C.No.223/2008 and order in appeal passed by the Fast Track Court-II, Tumkur in Crl. Appeal No.88/2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 13.02.2008 at about 9.00 a.m., when the deceased Boregowda @Boraiah, was walking on the road, which is a National Highway (NH 48), at Bidanagere Village, Kunigal Taluk, a lorry said to have been driven by the petitioner knocked the deceased and ran over him. When the deceased was being shifted and taken to Bengaluru for emergency treatment he breathed his last. 3. PW5, who is said to be the eye witness, lodged a complaint at Kunigal Police and an FIR was registered in Crime No.43/2008 under Section 279 and 338 of IPC. Subsequently, after the death of the deceased was reported, offence under Section 338 of IPC was substituted by 304A of IPC. In all, 7 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, where PW1, PW2 and PW5 are the eye witnesses. PW3 is the brother of the deceased, who shifted the deceased from the spot to provide medical assistance to the deceased. PW4 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, while PW7 is the Circle Inspector and Investigating Officer. PW6 is a pancha witness. 4. The Trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under section 279 and 304(A) of IPC and therefore sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in respect of the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of 2 ½ years in respect of the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC. 5. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Tumkur in Crl. Appeal No.88/2010. The Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal while confirming the conviction passed by the learned Magistrate and modified the sentence to the extent that the petitioner shall undergo half of the sentence passed by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court did not interfere with the fine imposed by the Trial Court. 6. Appeal No.88/2010. The Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal while confirming the conviction passed by the learned Magistrate and modified the sentence to the extent that the petitioner shall undergo half of the sentence passed by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court did not interfere with the fine imposed by the Trial Court. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court assailing the judgment and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. 7. Learned Counsel Sri A.H. Bhagavan, appearing for the petitioner would submit that the courts below have failed to see that the Motor Vehicle Inspector has not been examined and non-examination of the Motor Vehicle Inspector is fatal to the prosecution case. While the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report which is marked as Ex.P6 is considered by the courts below, mere production of the IMV report could not be taken as admissible substantial evidence, unless the author of the report is examined and made available for crossexamination by the defence. Likewise, it was submitted that while post mortem report was marked, the Doctor was not examined. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the case of the prosecution is based on a rough sketch, which is prepared and the same could not have been relied as conclusive proof to arrive at a conclusion that the driver of the vehicle was alone responsible for the accident. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would also point out to the admission of PW5 during cross-examination. PW5 has admitted that he is unable to say as to, by whose fault the accident occurred. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the courts below erred in not noticing that the deceased was said to have been walking on a National Highway and therefore there is no substantial evidence on record to show that the driver of the vehicle alone was responsible for the accident. The very fact that the deceased was walking on a National Highway clearly shows that he himself was the cause for accident, or for that matter, the contribution of the deceased in the accident could not be altogether ignored. 9. The learned counsel, in support of his contention would rely upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Sharanappa Basnagouda Aregoudar reported in AIR 2002 SC 1529 . 9. The learned counsel, in support of his contention would rely upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Sharanappa Basnagouda Aregoudar reported in AIR 2002 SC 1529 . In that case too, the accused was found guilty of rash and negligent driving, which resulted in death of four persons and injury to one person. While the Trial Court and the Appellate Court found the accused driver of mini lorry guilty of offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A, IPC on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reduced the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment of six months for offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has three children and a wife to take care of. As an alternative submission, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit and plead for mercy or lenience and prays that the sentence could be reduced to the minimum in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to supra. 11. Learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent-State would submit that no fault could be found in the orders of the trial court and the appellate court, since the courts below have considered the evidence on record and on being satisfied that the petitioner herein is guilty of rash and negligent driving and causing death of the deceased, interference by the Revisional Court is not called for. On the other hand, the learned HCGP submits that on the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding leniency to be shown under the facts and circumstances of the case, even if the sentence is reduced, the fine amount should necessarily be enhanced keeping in view of the ends of justice. Learned HCGP also placed on record a judgment of this Court which would support his contention. In the case of State by Malayalli Rural Police Station Vs Mahadevaswamy and others reported in Laws (Kar) 2016 6 192, this court had reduced the sentence while enhancing the fine, as compensation payable to the legal representatives of the deceased. 12. Learned HCGP also placed on record a judgment of this Court which would support his contention. In the case of State by Malayalli Rural Police Station Vs Mahadevaswamy and others reported in Laws (Kar) 2016 6 192, this court had reduced the sentence while enhancing the fine, as compensation payable to the legal representatives of the deceased. 12. On hearing the learned counsels on both sides and perusing the records and judgments cited by the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the leniency as shown by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharanappa Basnagouda Aregoudar and Mahadevaswamy (supra), can be shown in the case on hand and the sentence is required to be modified and reduced. 13. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The petitioner shall undergo sentence of imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) and no separate sentence is required to be undergone with respect of the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, while the petitioner shall pay fine of Rs.25,000/- to the legal representatives of the deceased, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in default, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment of six months. No order as to costs.