ORDER : This revision petition is preferred by Accused aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot in C.C.No.946/2009 dated 02.09.2010 convicting him for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, which is confirmed in Crl.A.No.72/2010 dated 31.03.2011 by Sessions Judge, Bagalkot. 2. Parties herein shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. Brief facts leading to this case are as under: It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.09.2009 at about 8.00pm in the night on the Shirur Kamatagi Road, after about 3 kilometers of Kamatagi near the land of one Muttappa Vaneppa Malaghan near Shirur Village, accused while driving a KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-38 F-437 coming from Kamatagi side towards Bagalkot, drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and he negligently dashed against the Bullock Cart, going in front of the bus on the very same direction towards Shirur and caused accident. Due to the accident PW1 who was rider of Bullock Cart along with PW3 sustained grievous injuries and PW2 sustained simple injury. Thereby accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. 4. On cognizance being taken by the trial Court, accused was summoned and his plea was recorded, wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, he was tried. 5. In order to prove the guilt of accused, prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses as PW1 to PW12 and got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to P9. Thereafter, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, whereunder accused denied all the incriminating evidence. Accused examined himself as DW1 and portion of statement of PW9 was marked on his behalf as Ex.D1. 6. After going though the entire material oral and documentary, trial Court came to a conclusion that prosecution proved guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted him for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC; Rs.500/-for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-along with default sentence for the aforesaid offences. 7. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in Crl.A. No.72/2010. After re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the entire evidence both oral and documentary, the Appellate Court came to a conclusion that all materials produced before the trial Court have been carefully appreciated by the trial Court and has held that the trial Court rightly convicted the accused for the said offences and did not find any reason to reverse the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Hence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of trial Court. 8. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and judgment of conviction of both the Courts, the accused is before this Court challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of judgments of both the Courts. 9. Heard Sri P.Savadi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Ramesh Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State. 10. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that judgment and order of conviction passed by trial Court and confirmed by Appellate Court is contrary to the material evidence on record and facts and circumstance of the case and hence the same deserves to be set aside and reversed. Learned counsel further contends that both the Courts have committed serious error in not considering the oral and documentary evidence and there is no iota of evidence with regard to rashness and negligence on behalf of accused. Despite no material on record showing or pin pointing any act of rash and negligent driving by accused, conviction and order of sentence passed by both the Court is unsustainable in law. 11. Learned counsel further contends, since the negligence is a matter to be established by factual aspect the onus and burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that accused drove in rash and negligent manner. In the present case there is no material evidence to show that the accused drove the bus in a high speed and that the accident has been caused due to the negligence of accused. Therefore, conviction order passed by both the Courts is not sustainable in law and the same deserves to be set aside. 12. He further contends that there is no eye witness to the incident and none of the witnesses have stated that accused drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, conviction order passed by both the Courts is not sustainable in law and the same deserves to be set aside. 12. He further contends that there is no eye witness to the incident and none of the witnesses have stated that accused drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. Learned counsel further contends that as it was in the dark night, time being 8.00pm, it would not be possible for any witness to see the bus coming in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, when there is no statement of any witnesses with regard to rash and negligent driving by accused, the conviction order passed is illegal and not sustainable. 13. Learned counsel further contends that PW6, who is doctor, after examining the injured has stated that injuries are simple in nature. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that there is no negligence by accused. 14. Learned counsel further contends that it is the statement of the passengers in the Bullock Cart that one of the bullock died on the spot, whereas PW7, Veterinary Doctor on examination of the bullocks has stated that bullocks suffered minor injuries. Therefore, this material contradictions are fatal to the case of prosecution. Learned counsel further contends that both the Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence and material documents produced before the Court and have committed serious error in convicting the accused for the aforesaid offence thereby causing mis-carriage of justice to accused. On these grounds learned counsel for accused seeks to allow the petition and set aside the order passed by both the Courts. 15. He placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his case: (1) P.M.RAJU vs STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in LAWS (KAR) 1977 2 24; (2) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs GOUTAM reported in 1977 CRL.L.J. 403, BOMBAY HIGH COURT; (3) DURGAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2008(5) Kar.L.J. 668 ; 16. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contends that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court, is based on the evidence on record and material placed before both the Courts. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contends that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court, is based on the evidence on record and material placed before both the Courts. He contends that the entire oral and documentary evidence has been considered and after analyzing the same trial Court found that accused was guilty of the offences alleged and convicted him for the aforesaid offences, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court after reconsideration and re-evaluation of the entire evidence. Therefore, the case does not call for any interference by this Court. 17. Learned Government Pleader contends that the accident has been caused by the driver of KSRTC – accused herein and it is not in serious dispute that accident occurred on 09.09.2009 at 8.00PM. He contends that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused and the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 5 have fully supported the case of the prosecution. He further contends that PWs 1, 2, 3 and 5 are injured persons, wherein PW1 has suffered grievous injuries and PW2 has suffered simple injury. He further contends that the injuries suffered have been narrated by the doctor by producing the wound certificate at Ex.P3, 4 and 5, which clearly states fracture of both legs and injuries were grievous in nature. Therefore, he contends that the entire material evidence have been taken into consideration by both the Court while convicting accused for the aforesaid offences. He further contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by both the Courts. On these grounds he seeks to dismiss the petition and confirm the order passed by both the Courts. 18. Having heard the learned counsel for accused and the learned HCGP for respondent – State, the point that arise for consideration before this Court is : ‘Whether there is any illegality or perversity committed by both the Courts in passing the impugned orders?’ 19. To answer this point, it is necessary to have a cursory look at the materials on record. It is not in dispute that on 09.09.2009 at around 8.00pm on Kamatagi Road after 3 kms. To answer this point, it is necessary to have a cursory look at the materials on record. It is not in dispute that on 09.09.2009 at around 8.00pm on Kamatagi Road after 3 kms. Near the land of one Muttappa Avaneppa Malaghan near Shiroor Village, accused while driving KSRTC bus bearing Registration No. KA-38 F-437, which was going towards Bagalkot from Kamatagi, has dashed against the Bullock Cart, thereby causing the accident leading to the injuries to PWs 1, 2, 3 and 5. 20. Only ground of attack by the learned counsel for accused is that there is no rash and negligent driving by the accused. In fact, it is the negligence on the part of the Bullock Cart, which suddenly went to its right side of the road hitting the bus on the left side causing damage to the bus head light. Therefore, bus was coming on the high way in a reasonable speed and due to sudden crossing of the Bullock Cart, the accident has occurred, which cannot be attributed to the accused as he was not driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. 21. On examination of entire material on record it is seen that the trial Court and the Appellate Courts have considered the entire evidence both oral and documentary and on the basis of evidence of prosecution, which is supported by the evidence of all the witnesses with regard to the occurrence of accident, the rashness or negligence of the accused which has caused grievous and simple injuries to the inmates of the Bullock Cart, has rightly come to a conclusion of convicting the accused for the offences alleged. It has also seen that the evidence adduced by parties have been appreciated properly by the Courts below and as nothing worth while has been elicited in the cross examination, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 22. It has also seen that the evidence adduced by parties have been appreciated properly by the Courts below and as nothing worth while has been elicited in the cross examination, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 22. In view of this, it is essential to extract Section 279 of IPC, which reads thus: “Rash driving or riding on a public way.— Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” 23. It is contended by the learned counsel for accused that the bus driver was not driving the bus in a high speed as adduced by the witness and conclusions arrived at, may not be applicable to the provisions for which the accused is charged as there is no rash and negligent driving of the bus, as the bus is not coming in a high speed. On careful perusal of the evidence, it is seen that provisions does not mention with regard to high speed, but only says that ‘whoever drives the vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.’ 24. Though the learned counsel for accused relied on the judgments in support of his case, stated supra, they are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, as each and every case is based on different set of facts and circumstances. 25. In the present facts of the case, all the witnesses have supported the case of prosecution, which has been re-appreciated and re-evaluated by the Appellate Court, and cannot be said that there was no proper appreciation of evidence and there is material defect in not considering the evidence of the witnesses. 25. In the present facts of the case, all the witnesses have supported the case of prosecution, which has been re-appreciated and re-evaluated by the Appellate Court, and cannot be said that there was no proper appreciation of evidence and there is material defect in not considering the evidence of the witnesses. The statement of witnesses corroborates with each other and the materials placed on record, shows and prove the guilt of accused, in my opinion, there is no error or illegality committed by both the Courts. The learned counsel for accused has also not pointed out any material irregularity or illegality committed by both the Courts in passing the impugned order. Therefore, to answer the above point, I find no illegality or perversity committed by both the Courts below and accordingly, no interference is called for by this Court. 26. Accordingly, I pass the following Order: ORDER The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.