ORDER : This revision petition is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC in C.C.No.129/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Kalaghatagi and also the judgment of confirmation passed in Crl.Apl.No.76/2010 on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad. 2. Ranking of the parties is referred as per their ranking before the Court below. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the Kalaghatagi police have registered the case against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.74/2009 alleging that on 14.04.2009 at about 1.00 p.m. the accused being the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus driven the bus from Dharwad towards Begur cross in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and he lost control and dashed to the left side of the tree and as a result 10-12 passengers have sustained simple injuries. 4. The prosecution in order to prove the offences, relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 15 and the accused has not led any evidence before the Court below and the Court below considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the above offences and sentenced. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused herein has approached the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also re-appreciated the evidence in Crl.Apl.No.76/2010 confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 29.10.2011. 6. The accused herein being aggrieved by the findings of the Court below as well as the First Appellate Court has preferred this revision petition contending that both the Courts below have committed an error in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in proper and perspective manner. 7. The main contention of the accused is that on the date of the accident some cattle’s were suddenly came in front of the bus and this accused in order to avoid dashing the cattle’s he took the bus towards the left side of the road and as a result the vehicle moved in a ditch and there he stopped the vehicle in front of the tree and the Court below has not considered this fact. 8. 8. The other contention that it is the specific defence in the cross-examination of the witnesses that at the time of the accident there was pits in the road and the road was also not wide and in order to avoid the accident when the cattle’s came across the road the accused tried to stop the vehicle and it was the curve road and he could not control the bus and the Investigating Officer has also not collected the photo and sketch of the place of the incident which was admittedly a curve road and hence both the Courts below have committed an error in appreciating both the oral and documentary evidence and the findings given by both the Courts below is perverse. 9. Heard the counsel appearing for the accused and the counsel in his argument reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition has contended that both the Courts below have committed an error in appreciating the evidence available on record and did not consider the defence raised by the accused in the Court below and failed to appreciate the admissions elicited from the mouth of the witnesses, particularly, PWs.1 to 3 and erroneously convicted the accused. The First Appellate Court also did not consider the evidence available on record and erred in confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence. 10. The counsel appearing for the accused alternatively also made the submission that if this Court were come to the conclusion that there is no merit in this revision petition, the sentence also has to be modified and in support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 1986 G.L.H. 117 in the case of Rajbir Vs. State of Haryana on the ground that the accused is a K.S.R.T.C. driver and the conviction should not affect his service. In support of his contention, he also relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court passed in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1346/2010 contending that referring the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court modified the sentence. The counsel also relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1094/2010 and so also an unreported judgment passed in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.796/2010 and other judgment passed in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2317/2012. The counsel also relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1094/2010 and so also an unreported judgment passed in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.796/2010 and other judgment passed in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2317/2012. By relying upon these judgments, the counsel for the accused contends that if this Court were come to the conclusion that this accused has committed an offence, the sentence should not affect his service and the same has to be modified imposing only the fine. 11. Per contra, the learned HCGP in his argument he vehemently contended that both the Courts below have considered the evidence available on record and given the concurrent findings and this Court cannot sit and re-appreciate the evidence available on record and the scope of revision is very limited and only if the Court finds that in the judgments of the Court below, the Courts have committed laying error in appreciation of evidence or appreciation of law, then only this Court can exercise the power of revision and in the case on hand there is no such circumstances and hence no need of interference by this Court exercising its revisional jurisdiction. 12. Having heard the arguments of the counsel for the accused and also the learned HCGP, this Court has to examine whether this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction and whether the Courts below have committed error apparent in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and the said finding is perverse. 13. In keeping the contentions raised by the accused as well as the learned HCGP, no doubt there is no dispute with regard to the scope and ambit of this Court in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Before considering the matter, this Court would also like to refer the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The scope of this Court is very limited while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Before considering the matter, this Court would also like to refer the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The scope of this Court is very limited while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. The reivisional Court cannot sit as a second appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence unless the judgment of the Courts below suffers from perversity as held in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand reported in 2004 (7) SCC 659 and also in the judgment of State of Gujarath vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 132, the Apex Court reiterated that under section 397 of Cr.P.C. the High Court does not sit as a second appellate Court and could not re-appreciate the evidence unless the judgment of the Courts below suffers from perversity. 14. In the light of the principles laid down in the judgments and also considering the scope and ambit of this revision petition, this Court has to examine any perversity in the judgment of the Court below as well as the First Appellate Court. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 this Court found two fold defence while cross-examining the PWs.1 to 3. It has to be noted that the offence invoked against this accused is for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. 15. Before appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, this Court would like to make a mention of the contents of the complaint which is marked as Ex.P.1 and whether the evidence is in consonance with Ex.P.1. On perusal of the complaint-Ex.P.1, it is alleged in the complaint that this accused drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner endangering the human life and passengers have instructed the driver to drive the bus in a slow manner and in spite of it he drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and as a result some persons have sustained injuries. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, who are the star witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 in his chief examination no doubt in his evidence he says that the driver of the bus driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner in his chief evidence and also PW.2 also deposed that the driver driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner. On perusal of the chief evidence of PW.3, he also reiterates the statement of PWs.1 and 2 that he drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and these witnesses were subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination of PW.1 he admits that some people were also standing in the bus and the passengers, who were sitting in the rear side could not see what was happening in the outside and further he admits that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.1 stating that what the police have written in the complaint. It is important to note that though he is the complainant and given the complaint, he does not know the contents of the complaint and further he did not identify the driver and further he categorically admits that there was more curve in the road and also he admits that in view of the curve road the vehicles move in a slow manner and also further says that before the accident he has observed twice break sound and also jerking and further he admits that the bus was also installed speed control instrument and the driver driven the bus in a slow manner and the tree was very near to the road and as a result the accident was occurred. PW.1 has denied the suggestion of other defence that the cattle suddenly came across the road and in order to avoid the accident he took the vehicle towards the left side and to avoid dashing the cattle he took the bus suddenly left side and the same was denied. PW.2 also in the cross-examination he categorically admits that the place of the accident is a curve road and further he admits that due to the said curve, the driver of the bus driven the bus in a slow manner. PW.2 also in the cross-examination he categorically admits that the place of the accident is a curve road and further he admits that due to the said curve, the driver of the bus driven the bus in a slow manner. PW.3 also in the cross-examination he admits that he has not given any statement to the police and further he admits that there were 60 passengers in the bus and some of the passengers were standing in the middle of the bus and he admits that he was sitting on the 7th seat. He also denied the defence and suggestion that a cattle came across the bus. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of PW.4 who is the pancha witness. PW.5 is the ASI, who registered the case and investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. PW.5 also in the cross-examination he admits that the place of the accident is a curve road and a suggestion was made that the vehicles move in only 10-20 k.m. speed since there is a curve and the said suggestion was denied. 16. For having taken note of the defence of the accused which are in two fold, no doubt nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3, who are the eyewitnesses that the cattle came across the bus and though such defence is taken, nothing is elicited from the mouth of PWs.1 to 3 and they have categorically denied the suggestion made to them. The other ground urged by the accused is also that the said road is a curve road and the bus normally could not pass in a high speed and in the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3 all of them have categorically admitted that the place of the accident road is a curve road and not only PWs.1 to 3 have admitted and even the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation also in the cross-examination he categorically admits the place of accident is a curve road and apart from that in the panchanama which is marked as Ex.P.15 it is mentioned that there is tar road and measuring 12 feet and hence it is clear that the width of the road is not broad and it is a narrow road and nothing is mentioned in the panchanama-Ex.P.15 that the place of the accident is a curve road and when these witnesses PWs.1 to 3 and PW.5 have admitted the road as a curve road and on perusal of the entire judgment of the Court below, the Court below did not appreciate these admissions. I have already pointed out that two fold defence is taken by the accused and in order to come to the conclusion of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver, there must be a cogent evidence before the Court and nowhere in the judgment of the Court below regarding the road is a curve road has not been discussed and the material defence of the accused is not discussed. 17. 17. It is further important to note that in the cross-examination of the witnesses i.e. eyewitnesses who were traveling in the bus categorically admitted that due to the curve road the bus was proceeding in a slow manner and when these witnesses admit that due to the curve road the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a slow manner, the question of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver does not arise and the same also does not fulfill the ingredients of rash and negligence on the part of the driver and apart from that PW.1 not identified this accused as driver and other witnesses also says that the bus is loaded more than 60 persons and some of the passengers were standing in the bus and they could not observe the manner in which the bus was driving and this Court has already pointed out that PWs.1 to 3 have admitted that in the curve road normally the vehicles move in a slow manner and particularly, PW.1 categorically admitted that the speed controller was also installed in the bus and the driver was proceeding in the bus in a slow manner and the tree was nearer to the road and it is a curve road and as a result the accident was occurred. PW.2 also categorically admits that the bus was moving slowly since there was a curve road and all these admissions are not considered and discussed in the judgment of the Court below. The First Appellate Court also in its judgment though discussed with regard to the oral and documentary evidence, in para No.10 of the judgment at page No.10 made the observation that though the vehicles were slow down in the curves where PW.1 admitted that and further observed that here in this case accident spot was not curve but it is near to Begur cross where the accused also not stated that it is curve and in curve it is dashed. It is important to note that the accused has not been examined and question of stating so does not arise. It is important to note that the accused has not been examined and question of stating so does not arise. Only the Court has to consider the defence of the accused and the very defence itself is the evidence of the accused and the counsel for the accused in the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3 categorically elicited that the accident road is curve road and the driver of the bus was proceeding in a slow manner and in spite of these answers elicited from the mouth of PWs.1 to 3 and also from the mouth of the PW.5-Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and he also categorically admits that it is curve road and when such being the case, the First Appellate Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the accused has not stated that it is curve road and further came to the conclusion that the accident spot was not curve though PW.1 to 3 are is admitted is nothing but perversity. 18. I have already pointed out that the second defence of the accused has not been considered by the Court below and not discussed anything about the location of the accident and also not discussed with regard to the road is curve road and the First Appellate Court given the findings with regard to the place of the accident is not a curve road and both the Courts below have committed an error in not appreciating the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and PW.5 and hence, I am of the opinion that this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction and can come to the conclusion that both the Courts below have committed an error in appreciating the evidence and the findings of the Courts below is nothing but perversity in appreciating the evidence and the question of law regarding ingredients of the offence. 19. 19. It is a settled law that if the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a right perspective and if any perversity is found with regard to appreciation of the evidence available on record and found glaring errors in appreciation of evidence and also appreciation of law, the Court can exercise its revisional power and can interfere with the impugned judgment of the Courts below and this is what found in the judgments of both the Courts below and there are glaring errors in appreciation of evidence by both the Courts below and also with regard to appreciation of law and in order to invoke Section 279 of IPC, there must be rashness and negligence on the part of the driver and merely the bus dashed on the left side of the tree only is not the sole test and in order to come to such a conclusion, there must be cogent evidence before the Court with regard to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and admittedly the road is curve road and all the witnesses, who have deposed before the Court below have categorically admitted that the road is curve road and also elicited answer from the mouth of these witnesses that the driver of the bus was proceeding in a slow manner in a curve road and when such being the evidence, I do not find any material to invoke Section 279 of IPC and there must be recklessness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and ingredients of Section 279 of IPC is not proved by the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused. 20. Having considered both the oral and documentary evidence and also the findings of the Courts below, it is a fit case to exercise revisional jurisdiction and the very findings of both the Courts below is nothing but perversity and the very defence of the road is a curve road has not been appreciated by the Court below and also the First Appellate Court came to the erroneous conclusion that the road is not a curve road. Under the circumstances, the judgment of conviction of the Court below and also the confirmation order passed by the First Appellate Court does not survive and the same requires to be set aside. 21. Under the circumstances, the judgment of conviction of the Court below and also the confirmation order passed by the First Appellate Court does not survive and the same requires to be set aside. 21. In view of the discussions made above, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The revision petition is allowed. The judgment of conviction passed in C.C.No.129/2009 dated 24.07.2010 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Kalaghatagi and also the judgment of confirmation passed in Crl.Apl.No.76/2010 dated 29.10.2011 on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad are set aside. The bail bond of the accused is cancelled.