ORDER : The petitioner has filed this revision petition challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Hospet, in C.C.No.1327 of 2005 dated 14.06.2007 thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act and the judgment and order dated 24.01.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.97 of 2007 by the II Additional Session Judge, Bellary, dismissing the said appeal filed by the accused-petitioner. 2. I have heard Sri. T.Hanumareddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Anthony R. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the on 24.02.2005 at about 2.30 p.m., the accused being the driver of the truck bearing registration No.KA-35/A-1122 drove the same on NH-13 in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life, from Kudligi towards Hospet and near Danayakanakere cross, he dashed his vehicle to one Mahantesh, aged about 11 years, who was crossing the road and due to the said accident, Mahantesh sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same and further the accused, after causing the accident, ran away from the place of the incident without giving intimation about the accident to the nearest Police Station and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC and under Section 187 of IMV Act. 4. Before the trial Court, the prosecution got examined 7 witnesses and got marked 6 documents. The accused denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him while he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, explained the cause of accident in his written statement stating that he was driving the vehicle slowly and near Danayakanakere cross, there was a bus stationed on the left side and to overtake the bus, when he took his truck to the right side, the boy, who was crossing the road, came under the rear wheels of his truck and died at the spot and therefore submitted that there is no fault of his in causing the accident in question. 5. 5. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused and passed the sentence as under: i. The accused was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days. ii. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days. iii. The accused was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/-for the offence punishable under Section 187 of IMV Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days. 6. In the Criminal Appeal filed by the accused against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, the Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, dismissed the appeal. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the explanation given by the accused under 313 of CR.P.C. was not properly considered by the Courts below. Though the accused is not disputing the accident but the accident has occurred solely on account of the negligence of the boy who suddenly crossed the road. Therefore, he submits that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the victim himself. He further submits that though the sketch was prepared by the Investigating Officer, the said Investigating Officer has not been examined and he disputes the said sketch. Therefore, he submits that a great prejudice has been caused because of non-examination of the Investigating Officer in this case and he submits that both the Courts have failed to take into consideration the same and have erroneously passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which requires interference by this Court. 8. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent–State contended that PWs.1 to 5 are the eye witnesses to the incident and according to them, the accused being the driver of the lorry came in a high speed and dashed against the deceased and therefore the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. 8. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent–State contended that PWs.1 to 5 are the eye witnesses to the incident and according to them, the accused being the driver of the lorry came in a high speed and dashed against the deceased and therefore the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. He has further submitted that it is clear from the evidence on record that after the accident, the accused ran away from the spot without intimating the incident to the concerned police station as required under law and therefore the accused has also committed the offence punishable under Section 187 of IMV Act. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the petition. 9. I have perused the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below and also the lower court records. 10. It is not in dispute that the accused was the driver of the lorry in question which caused the accident and on account of which, a boy, namely, Mahantesh, aged about 11 years died. The Courts below having considered the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 came to the conclusion that the involvement of the vehicle and the accused being the driver of the said vehicle is not in dispute. Further, relying on the hand sketch map, the trial Court has observed that the accused has come to the western side of the road which is towards his extreme right and caused the accident. It is further observed that the hand sketch map goes to show that the accident took place at a distance of 4 feet towards the eastern side of the road and therefore the trial Court came to the conclusion that the accused tried to overtake the bus without stopping his vehicle and failed to avoid the accident. 11. The Appellate Court also placing reliance on the sketch has observed that the accused, driver, brought his lorry to the extreme right edge of the road, where the boy was crossing and therefore his explanation cannot be accepted and held that the accused has failed to take that degree of care to use the vehicle in the village limits and accordingly dismissed the appeal. 12. It is relevant to note that both the Courts below have placed reliance on the rough sketch prepared in the instant case by the investigating officer. 12. It is relevant to note that both the Courts below have placed reliance on the rough sketch prepared in the instant case by the investigating officer. However, neither the Investigation Officer who prepared the rough sketch was examined nor the rough sketch has been marked in evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the said sketch and submits that the accident has occurred on the National Highway and the presence of the stationed bus has not been noted in the said rough sketch. When the learned counsel has disputed the rough sketch and the manner in which the accident has occurred as projected by the prosecution, then non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly prejudiced his case. The accused has denied that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by him. 13. It is clearly seen from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, that the victim was trying to cross the road in a hurry. It is elicited in the cross examination of PW-1 that the accident occurred when the deceased came running to cross the road. Even the evidence of PW.3 goes to show that the deceased by running, tried to cross the road. Both the Courts below have failed to take into consideration the said aspect and solely relying on the sketch, which is not even marked in evidence, and prepared by the Investigating Officer, who is not examined, convicted the accused. 14. As noted above, from the evidence and material on record, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established that the accident took place solely on account of rash or negligent act by the accused i.e. the driver of the vehicle in question and therefore, the order of conviction and sentence passed insofar as Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC is not sustainable. 15. However, the specific case of the prosecution is that, after the accident, the accused being the driver of the vehicle in question, has failed to intimate the occurrence to the nearest police station. It is the consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses that after the accident, the accused ran away from the spot. Hence, the prosecution is able to establish that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 187 of IMV Act. Accordingly, I pass the following : ORDER The revision petition is partly allowed. It is the consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses that after the accident, the accused ran away from the spot. Hence, the prosecution is able to establish that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 187 of IMV Act. Accordingly, I pass the following : ORDER The revision petition is partly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.06.2007 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Hospet, in CC No.1327 of 2005 thereby convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC, which is confirmed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Bellary, in Criminal Appeal No.97 of 2007 dated 24.01.2011 is hereby set aside. The accused is acquitted of the said offences. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 187 of IMV Act by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court, shall stand.