ORDER : Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304[A] of IPC, the accused has preferred the above revision petition. 2. Petitioner was prosecuted in C.C. No.827/2009 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote, for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304[A] of IPC on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Hosakote Police in Crime No.83/2009 of their Police Station. Crime No.83/2009 was registered on complaint of PW.1 as per Ex.P1. 3. For the purpose of convenience, the petitioner shall be referred to as accused. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief was as follows: (a) That on 19.02.2009 at 5.30 pm, PW.1-H.N. Mohan and deceased Yallappa were proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-53/E-4177 near checkpost on NH-4 within the jurisdiction of Hosakote Police Station. PW.1 was the rider and Yallappa was the pillion rider. At that time, the accused drove the container lorry bearing registration No. TN-45-H-4577 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and hit the motorcycle from the hind side. Due to the impact, Yallappa fell down from the motorcycle and the wheel of the container lorry ran over his body and caused him grievous injuries. PW.1 also suffered simple injuries. PW.1 shifted Yallappa to Srinivasa Hospital at Hosakote and after preliminary treatment in the said Hospital, on the advice of the Doctors, PW.1 shifted Yellapa to Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru. Yallappa died in the said Hospital. (b) Regarding the incident, PW.1 filed a complaint as per Exhibit.P1 before PW.4-Assistant Sub Inspector of Hosakote Police Station. On the basis of such complaint, PW.4 registered FIR as per Exhibit.P6 and handed over further investigation to CW.14 who visited the scene of offence and conducted the mahazar as per Exhibit.P2 in the presence of PW.2 and PW.3. During the spot mahazar, he seized both the vehicles. On the request of CW.14, the Taluk Executive Magistrate, conducted inquest mahazar as per Exhibit.P3 and the Motor Vehicle Inspector conducted the inspection of both the vehicles and submitted a report as per Exhibit.P5. The post mortem report as per Exhibit.P4 was issued by the concerned Doctor and after conducting investigation, CW.14 filed charge sheet. 5. The trial Court on taking cognizance of the offence, tried the accused for the offences as aforesaid. The post mortem report as per Exhibit.P4 was issued by the concerned Doctor and after conducting investigation, CW.14 filed charge sheet. 5. The trial Court on taking cognizance of the offence, tried the accused for the offences as aforesaid. The defence of the accused was that himself and the container lorry were in no way connected to the accident. It was his further defence that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by PW.1 himself, however, for the purpose of claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, PW.1 has falsely implicated the accused and the Lorry. 6. On conducting the trial and hearing the parties, the trial Court, by Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2014 convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304[A] of IPC. Further, the trial Court sentenced the accused to simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304[A] of IPC and fine of Rs.2,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC with default sentence. 7. The accused challenged the said order of conviction and sentence before the VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No.75/2014. The first Appellate Court by the impugned Judgment and Order dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the Judgment and Order of the trial Court. 8. Both the trial Court and the first Appellate Court based the conviction on the following grounds: [a] The charges were proved by the evidence of PW.1 – injured eye witness, PW.2 and PW.3 the witnesses to the seizure of the vehicles under the mahazar Exhibit.P2. [b] Evidence of PW.4 – Police Officer who registered the FIR. [c] PW.1 to PW.4 corroborated each other in material particulars. [d] The delay in filing the complaint was satisfactorily explained. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused seeks to assail the impugned order of conviction and sentence on the following grounds: [a] Though the complaint stated that the victim was treated at the Hospital at Hosakote and Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru, medical records of those two hospitals were not produced. Therefore, the delay in filing complaint was not satisfactorily explained. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused seeks to assail the impugned order of conviction and sentence on the following grounds: [a] Though the complaint stated that the victim was treated at the Hospital at Hosakote and Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru, medical records of those two hospitals were not produced. Therefore, the delay in filing complaint was not satisfactorily explained. [b] If the cause of death was due to the injuries caused in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the accused, then that could have been reflected in the medico legal cases register and the case sheet of the victim maintained in the hospital. Those material documents were suppressed by the Investigating Officer which has prejudiced the defence of the accused. [c] PW.2 and PW.3 did not support the seizure of the vehicle under the mahazar Exhibit.P4 or drawing of spot mahazar. Therefore, the trial Court was not justified in holding that the witnesses corroborated each other in material particulars. [d] Though PW.1 claimed to be the injured witness, no medical records relating to his injuries were produced. Therefore, he being eye witness itself was doubtful. [e] Evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 showed that they were friends of PW.1 and therefore they were interested persons. [f] To explain such material omissions in the investigation, the Investigating Officer was not examined. The accused did not get any opportunity to cross examine on those lines. Thereby his evidence was prejudiced. 10. Per contra, learned Government Pleader justifies the impugned order of the trial Court on the following grounds: [a] Both the lower Courts on appreciation and re-appreciation of the evidence have concurrently held that the charges are proved. This Court in the revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere with the same. [b] The accident and cause of death were not disputed. Therefore non production of the medico legal cases register was not fatal. [c] Non examination of the Investigating Officer is not fatal to the prosecution. [d] The accused in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.PC did not claim that he was implicated for the purpose of claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 11. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the following Judgments: [a] ‘RAVI KAPUR vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [2012] 9 SCC 284 [b] ‘STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. BHASKAR KUSHALI KOTHARKAR AND OTHERS’ 2004 [7] SCC 487. 12. 11. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the following Judgments: [a] ‘RAVI KAPUR vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [2012] 9 SCC 284 [b] ‘STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. BHASKAR KUSHALI KOTHARKAR AND OTHERS’ 2004 [7] SCC 487. 12. Having regard to the rival contentions, the following point arises for consideration: “Whether the trial Court committed illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in holding that the prosecution proved charges beyond all reasonable doubts?” 13. Accused did not dispute the death of Yellappa and the post mortem report Ex.P.4. He also did not dispute that the injuries mentioned in Ex.P.4 were caused in a motor accident. His defence was that himself and container lorry No.TN-45-H-4577 were in no way connected to the alleged accident or the death of Yellappa. The whole case of the prosecution to prove the involvement of the accused and container lorry No.TN-45-H-4577 was based on the solitary evidence of PW.1 the injured eye witness. 14. It is the settled proposition of law that to convict a person for any offence the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubts. The first doubt the accused raised was the delay in filing the complaint. The complainant stated that the incident took place on 19.02.2009 at 5.30 p.m. Except him there were no other person to speak about the exact date and time of the accident. 15. The accident alleged to have occurred on the National Highway within Hosakote Town limit. It was not the case of PW.1 also that there were no other persons on the road at the time of accident to help them. He stated that soon after the accident he took the injured Yellappa to Hoskote Hospital and from there he was shifted to Hosmat Hospital. He filed the complaint after the death of Yellappa. Absolutely there is no material to substantiate the evidence of PW.1 regarding he shifting Yellappa to Hoskote Hospital and from there to Hosmat Hospital. 16. PW.1 also claims to have suffered minor injuries. If PW.1 reported in the Hospital along with Yellappa with history of road traffic accident, certainly there should have been entry in the MLC register and the case sheet regarding history of the injuries and the particulars of the accident. PW.1 also should have been examined by the Doctor. At least after filing the complaint, the Investigating Officer should have referred him for the medical examination. 17. PW.1 also should have been examined by the Doctor. At least after filing the complaint, the Investigating Officer should have referred him for the medical examination. 17. To explain why the medical records were not collected, the Investigating Officer did not enter the witness box. The said medical records could have helped the accused to substantiate his defence. The Doctors of both the hospitals who treated the deceased in the said hospitals were not cited as charge sheet witness. Atleast if Investigating Officer had entered the witness box, the accused could have cross examined him to elicit the veracity of the complaint and statement regarding PW.1 taking the victim to the Hosakote hospital and from there to Hosmat hospital. Thus there was no material to accept the cause of delay. However, the Trial Court and First Appellate Court without noticing such material omissions accepted the evidence of PW.1 as gospel truth regarding delay as well as the incident. 18. Other circumstances relied on by the prosecution as well as the Courts below was the seizure of the vehicles under the mahazar Ex.P.2. The accident allegedly took place on 19.02.2009 at about 5.30 p.m. The prosecution claims that after registering FIR CW.14 visited the scene of offence and drew the mahazar Ex.P.2 in the presence of PWs.2 and 3 and seized the vehicles as per Ex.P.2. The said mahazar was drawn on 20.02.2009 between 4.00 and 4.30 p.m. Absolutely no evidence was adduced to show that after the accident both the vehicles were left at the scene of offence only. Even P.W.1 does not speak to that. 19. PW.1 claims that he too had suffered injuries, but he alone shifted Yellappa who was severely injured to two different hospitals. It was not his case that somebody came there to help him. He did not speak anything about the mode of conveyance and that both the vehicles were left at the spot. Under such circumstance, the burden was heavy on the prosecution to prove that the vehicles were seized as mentioned in Ex.P.2. 20. To prove Ex.P2, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. PW.2 in his chief examination itself stated that the police did not seize any material object in his presence during the mahazar Ex.P.2 . He could not tell the number of the lorry seized under Ex.P.2. 20. To prove Ex.P2, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. PW.2 in his chief examination itself stated that the police did not seize any material object in his presence during the mahazar Ex.P.2 . He could not tell the number of the lorry seized under Ex.P.2. Further PW.2 in his cross examination by the defence says that he subscribed his signature on Ex.P.2 at the Hosakote tank outlet and he does not know the facts of the present case. Thereby drawing of Ex.P.2 at the alleged scene of offence itself becomes doubtful. 21. PW.3 in his cross examination admitted that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.2 and who scribed that. He says that he does not know number of the lorry and motor cycle involved in the accident. He does not know who all were present at the time of mahazar. PW.3 admitted in his cross examination that himself and PW.2 are the friends of PW.1. That supports the defence contention that PWs.2 and 3 were interested witnesses. By such evidence of PWs.2 and 3 even the circumstance of seizure of the vehicles becomes doubtful. 22. Overlooking all such admissions of PWs.2 and 3 and material inconsistencies in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 the Trial Court and First Appellate Court held that the prosecution witnesses corroborate each other, with regard to the allegations against the accused. 23. The trial Court and First Appellate Court also ignored the fact that suppression of medical records of two hospitals where the deceased was allegedly treated and non-examination of Investigating Officer deprived the accused of the opportunity to demonstrate that the evidence of PW.1 regarding the accident is doubtful. 24. In Ravi kapur’s case relied upon by the learned HCGP the principle of res ipsa loquitur was involved. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it was for the accused to explain the facts within his knowledge in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. That is not the case here. 25. Similarly in Bhaskar Kushal’s case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was very strong and convincing evidence to prove that the accused attacked deceased and two other injured witness. The Court was also of the view that in view of the evidence of the injured victims the defence of the accused was not prejudiced by non-examination of Investigating Officer. Similarly in Bhaskar Kushal’s case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was very strong and convincing evidence to prove that the accused attacked deceased and two other injured witness. The Court was also of the view that in view of the evidence of the injured victims the defence of the accused was not prejudiced by non-examination of Investigating Officer. As already observed the evidence of PW.1 was not of such sterling quality and the same was not credible. Therefore, the judgment in Bhaskar Kushal’s case is also not applicable. 26. In the light of the facts and circumstances and the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the circumstances judiciously that caused injustice to the accused. Therefore, the impugned order of conviction and sentence is not sustainable. The Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court and upheld by the First Appellate Court against the petitioner are hereby set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC. The fine amount deposited, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner.