ORDER : The petitioner herein filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Tumukuru, in Criminal Case No.244 of 2008, dated 30-7-2010, by convicting the accused petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. By the judgment dated 21-12-2010, the same was confirmed by the Fast Tract Court II, Tumukuru, in Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2010. 2. The ranks of the parties before the trial Court are retained for the sake of brevity. 3. Kyatsandra Police filed a chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the deceased, Mohammed Khaleel, and one Mohammed Khalandar P.W.4 were on a trip in the lorry belonging to P.W.1, bearing No.CAA4138. On 16-9-2007 at 7:00 A.M., on the National Highway 4 near Sannappanapalya, the diesel in the said vehicle was exhausted. Therefore, they stopped the vehicle by the side of the road and informed to P.W.1 for bringing the diesel. Accordingly, P.W.1 bought the diesel. After filling the diesel into the tank, they were about to board the lorry and while standing on the side of the lorry, the accused, being the Driver of the lorry, bearing No.KA51 5556, came from Bengaluru to Tumukuru side in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the lorry of the complainant. Due to which, the deceased, Mohammed Khaleel, and Mohammed Khanlander sustained injuries. Both of them were shifted to Hospital, where Mohammed Khaleel was succumbed to injuries. A complaint was lodged before the Police. Accordingly, the Police investigated the matter and filed a chargesheet for the aforesaid offences. After taking cognizance, the J.M.F.C. recorded a plea of the accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution was called upon to lead the evidence. Accordingly, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked 13 documents. The statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein the accused has denied all the incriminating evidences appearing against him. 4. The prosecution was called upon to lead the evidence. Accordingly, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked 13 documents. The statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein the accused has denied all the incriminating evidences appearing against him. 4. After hearing the arguments, the learned J.M.F.C. found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/, in default of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen-days for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three-months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteendays for the offences punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the Fast Track Court II, Tumukuru, under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and after hearing both side, the learned Fast Track Court – II dismissed the appeal on 21-12-2010, by confirming the judgment and conviction passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred this revision petition by challenging the correctness, legality and findings of the sentence recorded by the Courts below on various grounds urged in the petition. 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State and perused the records. 6. Mr. K.N. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended during the course of arguments that the trial Court erred in accepting the evidence of P.W.1, who is not the eyewitness. P.Ws.4 and 5 have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. The Driver of the lorry, while parking the vehicle on National Highway, has not taken any precautionary measure to avoid the accident by keeping some stones or plant leaves behind the lorry to show that the vehicle was stationed and no parking indicators were on. P.Ws.4 and 5 have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. The Driver of the lorry, while parking the vehicle on National Highway, has not taken any precautionary measure to avoid the accident by keeping some stones or plant leaves behind the lorry to show that the vehicle was stationed and no parking indicators were on. There are damages on the front side of the lorry including denting of the bumper, which is not explained. P.W.4, so called eyewitness, has not identified the accused and by relying on the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.1. convicting the accused is illegal. There is no negligence on the part of the accused and the evidence of the witnesses is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Court below. 7. On the other hand, Sri Nasarulla Khan, the learned High Court Government Pleader, contended that identity of the accused was not dispute. The owner of the vehicle has given a letter to the Investigating Officer naming the petitioner was the Driver of the vehicle as on the date of the accident. The evidence of P.W.1, though turned hostile, cannot be thrown out threshold. However, portion of his evidence is reliable in support of the prosecution of the case can be acceptable and he supports the judgment of the Courts below. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 8. Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not indicate that revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power. Normally, the jurisdiction of the High Court in revision is to be exercised in exceptional cases, when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law, which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. Neither the trial Court nor the Sessions Court committed any error of fact or law in arriving at the conclusions, no interference is called for when concurrent findings of both the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court hold guilt of the accused. 9. On perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court while convicting the accused, mainly, relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4. 10. P.W.1, Mr. 9. On perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court while convicting the accused, mainly, relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4. 10. P.W.1, Mr. Mohammed Shabber, is said to be the owner of the lorry, bearing No.CAA4138, which was driven by his deceased brother, Mohammed Khaleel. On the fateful day, the lorry was parked on the National Highway 4 as the diesel in the said vehicle was exhausted. P.W.1 has stated that, after filling the diesel into the tank of the lorry, himself and his deceased brother were standing to board the lorry, the accused drove the lorry, bearing No.KA51 5556, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the lorry of P.W.1. Due to the impact, the lorry of P.W.1 dashed to the deceased, who succumbed to injuries. During cross-examination, nothing has been elicited, except denying that the accused was the Driver of the vehicle. 11. The learned counsel for the accused contended that P.W.4 has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution. The prosecution papers go to show that P.W.1, who is the complainant, came with the deceased in a scooter. Though he bought the diesel and filled into tank of the lorry and while standing, the presence of P.W.1 was not at all disputed by learned counsel for the accused in the trial Court. Apart from that, on perusal of the evidence, P.W.4, Mohammed Khalandar, was the Driver of the lorry. He has stated that P.W.1 is the owner of the lorry. P.W.1 bought the diesel to fill into the tank of the stationed lorry and while standing, this accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the lorry No.KA51 5556. Further, he has not identified the accused, who was present before the Court. Only for the identification purpose, this witness treated hostile and he has denied that he was driving the lorry at the time of the accident. 12. Normally, in an accident case, where offending vehicle driven by the Driver in a rash and negligent manner and cause accident, the name of the Driver of the offending vehicle cannot be mentioned in the F.I.R. and the Driver of the vehicle is normally traced out during the investigation and the Investigating Officer issues notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act and secures information from the owner of the offending vehicle. 13. 13. It is pertinent to note that P.W.7, the Investigating Officer, in his evidence, has stated that he had issued notice to the owner of the vehicle as per Ex.P.10 and obtained the information of the Driver as per Ex.P.11. These two documents are not disputed by the learned counsel during crossexamination. The owner of the offending lorry has clearly stated the name of the Driver, who drove the vehicle at the time of accident. The accused not disputed the accident and death of the deceased in the accident. Only dispute is with regard to rash and negligent driving of the Driver. 14. It is well settled law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KOLI LAKHMAN BHAI CHANABHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in (1999) 8 SC 624, wherein it was held that the evidence of the hostile witness cannot be thrown out entirety and the evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon to the extent to which it supports the case of the prosecution and there is no legal bar to base the conviction upon the testimony, if corroborated by other reliance evidence. 15. Learned counsel for the State argued that P.W.4 except identifying the Driver of the vehicle, he has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has stated about the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Therefore, merely Driver of the offending vehicle is not identified by the prosecution witness and he has turned hostile, it is not fatal to the case of the prosecution to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.4 in respect of rash and negligent driving. It was supported by P.W.5, who is another eyewitness. Non-denial of the fact that owner of the vehicle was given reply to the Investigating Officer for the notice issued under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act stating that the accused was driving the vehicle. Now, the accused cannot deny that he was not the Driver of the vehicle on the date of the accident. That apart, accused has not entered into any defence to show that he was not the driver on the fateful day of the accident and no evidence as such, except denial in 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure statement recorded by the trial Court. 16. That apart, accused has not entered into any defence to show that he was not the driver on the fateful day of the accident and no evidence as such, except denial in 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure statement recorded by the trial Court. 16. The learned counsel for the accused also contended that Driver or Cleaner of the lorry No.CAA 4138 had not taken any precautionary measure while parking the vehicle on the road by keeping some stones or plant leaves to show the vehicle was stationed and no parking indicators were on. In this regard, the accident was occurred in the morning hours at 7:00 a.m. and both the learned counsel argued regarding tyre mark of the offending vehicle. Ex.P.9 is the sketch prepared by the Police on the spot also goes to suggest that there was tyre mark of the offending vehicle for having applied brake. Merely, the accused tried to apply brake and tyre mark was found that itself cannot be acceptable that he had taken precautionary measure while driving the vehicle. Learned counsel for the State argued that in spite of applying brake, the accused was not able to control the vehicle. That itself shows that he was so rash and negligent in driving. Of course, the tyre mark goes to show that he has tried to apply the brake. Since he was in high speed, he could not control the vehicle and has dashed against the stationed vehicle. Though learned counsel for the accused contended that there was no precautionary measure taken by the Driver of the stationed lorry by keeping some stones or plant leaves and by turning on the indicators, but there was no crossexamination with P.Ws.1 or 4 in this aspect. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused for the first time in revisional Court cannot be acceptable. 17. On perusal of the entire material on record, the trial Court clearly appreciated the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 has rightly came to the conclusion that mere identification of the accused was not supported by the eyewitness that itself is not fatal to the case of the prosecution to disbelieve the evidence. The evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon, to the extent, which supports the case of the prosecution to base the conviction upon the testimony corroborated by other evidence. The evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon, to the extent, which supports the case of the prosecution to base the conviction upon the testimony corroborated by other evidence. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 7 are reliable to base the conviction of the accused. The First Appellate Court has rightly reappreciated the evidence and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 18. There is no material error committed by the Courts below while recording the findings and coming to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court under revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. Registry is directed to send the records with a copy of this order to the concerned Court, forthwith, for further course of action.