ORDER : 1. The revision petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.77/2010 before the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’). He is challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.09.2011 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and under Section 181 of MV Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/-for the offence punishable under Section 181 of MV Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 2. Brief facts of the case, as made out by the prosecution, are that, the revision petitioner/accused No.1, being the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA19 Y 6582, rode the same in a rash and negligence manner so as to endanger human life on 03.05.2009 on the National Highway leading from Mangaluru to Udupi and dashed against B.Nemu Shetty at 12.30 p.m. while he was crossing the road, as a result of which, he succumbed to the injuries. It is also stated that accused No.1 was not holding valid driving licence and thereby, he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 3(1) read with 181 of MV Act. 3. The prosecution, in support of its contentions, examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13. 4. The accused/revision petitioner has denied all the incriminating material available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. However, Ex.D1 was marked during the cross– examination of the prosecution witness. 5. 4. The accused/revision petitioner has denied all the incriminating material available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. However, Ex.D1 was marked during the cross– examination of the prosecution witness. 5. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences and sentenced him as aforesaid. 6. Accused No.2, being the registered owner of the offending motorcycle, was also prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 5(1) read with Section 180 of MV Act and was convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 180 of MV Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Accused No.2 has not preferred any appeal. 7. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, accused No.1/revision petitioner herein had preferred Criminal Appeal No.200/2011 before the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), which has dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit vide judgment dated 25.08.2014. Aggrieved by the same, revision petitioner is before this Court. 8. Heard Sri Nataraj Ballal A., learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri Vinayaka V.S., learned High Court Government Pleader representing the State. 9. Perused the material including the Trial Court records. 10. Learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner contended that the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused/revision petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution examined PWs.1, 4 and 5 as eyewitnesses to the incident. PW.1 is the son of the deceased. PW.4 is one of the relatives of the deceased. Even though it is contended that PW.5 is also an eyewitness, in fact, he was not at the scene of the occurrence. None of these witnesses have identified the accused. Moreover, admittedly, the deceased was crossing the National Highway, where there was no ‘zebra’ crossing. Therefore, negligence is attributable to the deceased and not to the revision petitioner. Even though it is contended that PW.5 is also an eyewitness, in fact, he was not at the scene of the occurrence. None of these witnesses have identified the accused. Moreover, admittedly, the deceased was crossing the National Highway, where there was no ‘zebra’ crossing. Therefore, negligence is attributable to the deceased and not to the revision petitioner. He submits that both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court committed error in finding the accused/revision petitioner guilty for the above said offences and prays for allowing the revision petition by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the Appellate Court. 11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supporting the impugned judgment of conviction submitted that both the Courts have considered the evidence of the eyewitnesses who are examined as PWs.1, 4 and 5. Ex.P5 -spot sketch shows the scene of occurrence at the extreme left side of the National Highway. Therefore, both the Courts have rightly held that the accused/revision petitioner is guilty for the above said offences and sentenced him as aforesaid. There is absolutely no grounds made out to interfere with the finding of the accused guilty and prays for dismissal of the revision petition. 12. On perusal of the materials on record, I find that PW.1 is the son of the deceased who was proceeding along with him at the time of the incident. The incident had taken place on 03.05.2009 at 12.30 p.m. and PW.1 lodged the First Information as per Ex.P1 at 2.30 p.m. The name of the person i.e., the revision petitioner as rider of the offending motorcycle is also mentioned therein. Therefore, there is prompt lodging of First Information by PW.1, who was accompanying the deceased. This witness specifically stated that accused No.1/ revision petitioner was riding the motorcycle and he refers his name as well. This witness also stated that the accused/revision petitioner had overtaken the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Even though this witness was cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve his version. There is absolutely no cross-examination disputing the identity of the accused/revision petitioner. 13. PWs.4 and 5 have also reiterated the say of PW.1 regarding rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the accused/revision petitioner and causing the death of the deceased. Even though this witness was cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve his version. There is absolutely no cross-examination disputing the identity of the accused/revision petitioner. 13. PWs.4 and 5 have also reiterated the say of PW.1 regarding rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the accused/revision petitioner and causing the death of the deceased. Both these witnesses are also cross examined by the learned counsel representing the accused, but nothing has been elicited to disbelieve their version. 14. The prosecution is relying on Ex.P5 – spot sketch. As per this document, the incident had taken place on National Highway 17 leading from Mangaluru to Udupi. The scene of occurrence is on the extreme left side of the road leaving just 1 feet from the left edge, while there is 21 feet space on the road on the right side. Even though it is contended that the deceased, being the pedestrian was crossing the National Highway where there was no ‘zebra’ crossing, it cannot be a justification for the accused to dash his motorcycle against the pedestrian. When admittedly the incident had occurred on the extreme left side of the road, no negligence could be attributable to the deceased and the act of the accused cannot be justified. Moreover nothing has been elicited be any of the eyewitnesses to take such defence. 15. When the prosecution is relying on clinching materials, both oral and documentary, to prove its contention regarding commission of the offence by the accused, the accused has neither effectively cross-examined to elicit any admission on the part of the material witnesses, nor he is having reasonable explanation for causing the accident, which admittedly resulted in the death of the deceased. Even though the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused/revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and under Section 181 of MV Act, the accused has not probablised his defence to seek an acquittal. 16. I have gone through the impugned judgment of the conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and also the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of conviction. Both the Courts have taken into consideration all these materials on record and have arrived at a right conclusion. 16. I have gone through the impugned judgment of the conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and also the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of conviction. Both the Courts have taken into consideration all these materials on record and have arrived at a right conclusion. There is concurrent finding of guilt of the revision petitioner by both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Hence, the revision petition filed by the accused/revision petitioner deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.