ORDER : This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Huvinahadagali in C.C. No. 425/2007 dated 26.06.2008 and also against the judgment passed by the Fast Track Court-III, Hospet in Crl. A. No. 130/2008 dated 09.08.2010 wherein the appeal was partly allowed. The order of convicting the accused for the offences punishable u/S 279 and 304(A) of IPC r/w Sec. 187 of IMV Act was confirmed. However, the order on sentence passed for the offence u/S 337 of IPC is modified and the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. The learned Fast Track Court judge adjudicated the appeal before that was against the order passed by the learned trial Court where the appeal was confirmed. 2. The facts unfurled from the case are : It is in respect of a road accident that was occurred on 22.09.2007 at about 6.00 p.m. in front of the house of the complainant wherein a speeding matador dashed against Veeresh and Gangamma. Because of the impact, Gangamma sustained minor injuries whereas Veeresh suffered severe injuries and was transported to C.J. Hospital, Davanagere for higher treatment, but being unable to recover from the injuries, he succumbed to them. FIR was registered against the accused for the offences punishable u/S 279, 337 of IPC and Sec. 187 of IMV Act. Thereafter, by virtue of the death of Veeresh, offence u/S 304(A) came to be inserted. The learned Fast Track Court Judge considered the oral evidence of the witnesses as per P.Ws.1 to P.W.9 and documentary evidence as per Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.10. The analysis of the case would be as under : 3. The place of accident is in front of the house of victim Veeresh and as stated, another female got minor injuries. Veeresh died in the hospital. Registration Number of the vehicle is KA282363. P.W.1 states about the incident of dashing by the matador to his friend Veeresh and also one Gangamma. He states Gangamma survived, however, Veeresh succumbed to the injuries. He also stated regarding lodging of complaint. He was also cross-examined. P.W.2 Badigera kotrappa states that on the date of incident, Veeresh with his daughter Gangamma, friend Talakal Basappa were standing by the side of the road. Badigera Suresh, Ganesh, Rudrachari, Kallanagouda were near the Panchayat office. The accused dashed his vehicle through his rash and negligent driving. He also stated regarding lodging of complaint. He was also cross-examined. P.W.2 Badigera kotrappa states that on the date of incident, Veeresh with his daughter Gangamma, friend Talakal Basappa were standing by the side of the road. Badigera Suresh, Ganesh, Rudrachari, Kallanagouda were near the Panchayat office. The accused dashed his vehicle through his rash and negligent driving. Vinodamma P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased Veeresh, who was said to be sitting in front of the house and saw her son Veeresh and his daughter Gangamma, aged three years being knocked down by a speeding matador. Badigera SureshP.W.4 is cited as another eyewitness. He stated about the incident. He further states about the driver running away from the spot after the incident stopping the vehicle. He stated that he can identify the driver who caused the accident. P.W.5Badigera Ganesh is also cited as eyewitness to the incident. He also stated regarding the manner in which the accident had occurred. P.W.7 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. He states that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle. P.W.8 and P.W.9 are the Police witnesses who deposed regarding conducting the investigation, drawing of mahazar, recording statements, etc. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would, in the first limb of arguments submits that, the accused was not identified and case falls at the threshold and that the accident happened on the curve where every driver of the vehicle is bound to drive the vehicle very slowly. Thus, the allegations of the prosecution are not correct. He would also submit that it has been more than 10 years since the date of offence and the accused has appeared for trial. 5. On the other hand, learned Govt. Pleader would submit that the victim in the case is Veeresh the deceased, he was knocked down by the offending vehicle. Mangala, a three year girl also suffered minor injuries in the accident. He submits that, P.W.3 had grave and shocking incident of seeing her son being decimated of the accident and the fatherP.W.2 who had taken his son victim to the hospital, where his son died. He submits that the petitioner herein drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the life. Further, the IMV report discloses that the accident is not occurred due to any mechanical failure. Hence, seeks to reject the petition. 6. He submits that the petitioner herein drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the life. Further, the IMV report discloses that the accident is not occurred due to any mechanical failure. Hence, seeks to reject the petition. 6. In the overall context of the case, learned counsel reiterates that no identification parade was conducted and owner of the vehicle was also not examined. In this connection, he would submit that, when the prosecution claims that accused ran away and hence the offence punishable u/S 187 of I.M.V. Act is also invoked against him. However, the accused was not identified. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the accused was known to all the witness of that village to identify the accused with reference to registration number of the vehicle, but the circumstances has to be analyzed. 7. The circumstances have to be visualized in addition to analysis. It is to be seen that the place of incident is not a big or popular area; second aspect is, if the accused had reason to believe that he did not drive the vehicle and identification parade was not conducted, there were areas to mention and justify it regarding the owner, insurance which is covered to the vehicle or by producing a copy of the policy or the copy of the FIR, final report and insurance report wherein a cursor glance of the said documents would reveal, what is what. 8. Learned counsel would further submit that no identification parade was conducted and hence the involvement of the accused is wrong. Hence, sought to discharge the accused. 9. It is also to be seen here that the accident is not happened on any highway wherein the heavy vehicles come with a greater velocity and can helter Skelton for applying breaks. Further, it is to be seen that, when a special defence apart from denial is taken, it is on the party who forwards it, has to establish the same. 10. In the circumstances, I am of the finding that the incident happened on particular period, the legal proceedings, such as mahazar, postmortem report, details of the crime, and the insurance policy, when the said document has to be by themselves loud and clear to convey the meaning that he was on a particular vehicle. 11. 10. In the circumstances, I am of the finding that the incident happened on particular period, the legal proceedings, such as mahazar, postmortem report, details of the crime, and the insurance policy, when the said document has to be by themselves loud and clear to convey the meaning that he was on a particular vehicle. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and on re-appreciation of entire materials on record, in this revision, I do not find any irregularity and infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for interference by this Court. Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed.