JUDGMENT G Basavaraja, J. - This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 04.02.2011 passed by the Principal JMFC, Honnavar in C.C. No.413/2010 which is confirmed by the judgment and order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar in Criminal Appeal No.37/2011 and acquitted the petitioner for the charges punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. 2. The ranks of the parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 30.04.2010 at about 10 A.M. at Manki Ellimakki in Honnavar Taluk on NH-17, accused being the driver of Tempo trax bearing registration No.KA-20/T-3557 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger the human life, took left side and went to a hill, as a result the vehicle was capsized. After filing the charge sheet, the trial Court has taken cognizance for the alleged commission of offence. The case was registered in C.C. No.413/2010. In response to the summons, accused appeared before the trial Court and plea was recorded, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined in all five witnesses as PWs.1 to 5 and got marked 18 documents as Exs.P1 to P18. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused has totally denied evidence appearing against him. He has not chosen to lead any evidence on his behalf, but during the course of cross-examination of PW4, Ex.D1 got marked. 5. On hearing the arguments of both side, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 of IPC. The impugned judgment of the trial court reveals that the accused was produced before the Court by the surety on 31.01.2011. The trial Court order sheet reveals that on 21.02.2011, accused was released on bail. As per the order sheet of Sessions Judge in Crl. The impugned judgment of the trial court reveals that the accused was produced before the Court by the surety on 31.01.2011. The trial Court order sheet reveals that on 21.02.2011, accused was released on bail. As per the order sheet of Sessions Judge in Crl. A. No. 37/2011, accused was in judicial custody for a period of 20 days and sentenced for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 337 and 338 of IPC and simple imprisonment for one year for the commission of offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence, the accused has preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.37/2011 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar and the said appeal came to be dismissed on 30.10.2012. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Appellate Court, petitioner is before this Court. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted his arguments that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in law. Both the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record. PWs.1, 3 and 4 are eye witnesses. During the course of cross examination of PW1, he has clearly admitted that, accident is not occurred due to the act of the PWs.1 and 3. In para 28 of the judgment of Appellate Court, it is observed that prosecution witnesses have admitted that there was slight drizzling on the day of incident. However, witnesses have specifically answered that the driver of the vehicle did not tried to overtake any vehicle at the time of accident. They have also stated that they cannot assign any exact reason for the accident. Though the Appellate Court has observed this fact, same is not properly appreciated in favour of the accused and confirmed the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. Both the courts have relied on the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur and has convicted the accused for alleged commission of offence. Said principle of doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur is not applicable to the criminal cases in view of the reasons assigned in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court. On all these grounds, he seeks for allowing the revision petition. 7. The learned counsel Addl. Said principle of doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur is not applicable to the criminal cases in view of the reasons assigned in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court. On all these grounds, he seeks for allowing the revision petition. 7. The learned counsel Addl. SPP has submitted his arguments that both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record and convicted the accused for commission of the alleged offences. The accused has not offered any explanation as to this accident while recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the defence set up by the accused counsel cannot be accepted and to substantiate his arguments, he relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of State of Karnataka Vs. Vajrappa reported in 2018(4) KCCR 3182 . During the course of reply arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bharat Vs. State of Madyapradesh reported in 2003(3) SCC 106 and in the case of Balaji Gunthu Dhule vs State Of Maharashtra Reported in 2012(11) SCC 685 . 8. I have carefully examined the materials placed by the prosecution. According to the case of the prosecution, PW-1-Chandrakantha Seena Shetty is the complainant, CWs.6 to 14 are the eye witnesses to this incident. Out of them, the prosecution has examined CW-1 Chandrakanth Seena Shetty, who has deposed in his evidence that on 30.04.2010, he, his wife, CWs.5 to 14 and deceased were proceeding in a Tempo Trax to Gokarna at about 10 a.m. They left to Murudeshwara. While, they were proceeding near Manki Ellimakki in Honnavar Taluk, the accused drove the vehicle in high speed and in negligent manner. He took vehicle towards left side and went on hill and it was capsized. As a result, he has sustained injuries and then he was shifted to RNS Hospital, Murudeshwara. Then he lodged the complaint before the Police as per Ex.P1. Further, he has deposed that Police have conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2. 9. From the prosecution papers, the CW.2-Suresh Kumar has attested the panchanama-Ex.P2 & has deposed in his evidence that Investigating Officer has conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2, prepared the spot sketch as per Ex.P3 and he has put his signature on inquest panchanama-Ex.P.4. CW.5-Narayana and CW.6-Jyothi are said to be the injured eye witnesses examined as PWs.3 and 4. 9. From the prosecution papers, the CW.2-Suresh Kumar has attested the panchanama-Ex.P2 & has deposed in his evidence that Investigating Officer has conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2, prepared the spot sketch as per Ex.P3 and he has put his signature on inquest panchanama-Ex.P.4. CW.5-Narayana and CW.6-Jyothi are said to be the injured eye witnesses examined as PWs.3 and 4. They have deposed in their evidence that on 30.04.2010, while they were proceeding in a Tempo Trax driven by the accused from Murudeshwara to Gokarna, near Manki Ellimakki the accused drove the vehicle in rash and high speed, the vehicle to the left side of the road and went on hill and capsized as a result both have sustained some injuries. 10. CW.21-M.Jagadish, CPI has deposed in his evidence that on 30.04.2010, the inquest panchanama as per Ex.P4 and he has also conducted spot panchanama as per Ex.P2 and recorded statement of witnesses CWs.4 to CW.16. He arrested the accused and released him on bail. He has issued the notice to the owner of the vehicle as per Ex.P5 and obtained his reply as per Ex.P.6 and after obtaining postmortem report, wound certificates and IMV report, he has submitted the charge sheet against the accused. 11. It is not in dispute that accused was the driver of the Trax bearing No.KA-20-B-3557 at the relevant point of time. The accident is also not disputed. The death of one of the inmate of the vehicle Sri.Kutti s/o Seena selly, aged 55 years is not disputed. Postmortem report is also submitted as per Ex.P7. It is also not in dispute that due to this accident, CWs.3, 4 and others have sustained some injuries. The wound certificate also produced as per Ex.P.9 to 18. It is also not in dispute that this accident is not due to any mechanical defect which is also reflected from IMV report-Ex.P.8. Now, the question is whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. In this regard, PWs.1, 3 and 4 have deposed in their examination in chief that the accident occurred, as the accused drove the vehicle in high speed and in negligent manner. But, during the cross examination of PW.1, he has clearly stated that at the time of accident, accused has not over took any vehicle. In this regard, PWs.1, 3 and 4 have deposed in their examination in chief that the accident occurred, as the accused drove the vehicle in high speed and in negligent manner. But, during the cross examination of PW.1, he has clearly stated that at the time of accident, accused has not over took any vehicle. Further, he has admitted that the road is down gradient on the accident spot. That day, it was raining and oil was spilled on the road. Further, he has admitted that the accident not occurred due to fault of the accused. In the cross examination of PW.31, he has stated that accused has not overtook any vehicle at the time of accident and accident occurred towards left side of the road. He does not know as to exact cause for this accident. Further, he has deposed that he cannot say how the accident was occurred. 12. In the cross examination of PW.4, she has admitted that accused has not overtook any vehicle, she cannot say as to the cause of this accident. Rain was coming. In the cross examination of PW.5, the Investigating Officer has stated that it was rainy season. 13. In para No.6, page No.3 of the judgment of the trial Court, the trial Court has observed that in the cross examination of all the witnesses, it is stated that they cannot say how the accident has taken place. However, it is observed that merely because of admission of these witnesses to this effect, the entire evidence in the chief examination about the specific negligent act and rash driving of the accused cannot be taken away. 14. The Appellate Court has also observed in the judgment, as to the admissions made by the prosecution witnesses. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it is crystal clear that driver of the vehicle did not tried to overtake any vehicle at the time of accident. It is admitted that on the date of accident, there was slight drizzling, and the oil was spilled on the road. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused has driven the vehicle slowly, of spilling of oil on the road and slight drizzling on the day of incident, the alleged accident was occurred. 15. It is admitted that on the date of accident, there was slight drizzling, and the oil was spilled on the road. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused has driven the vehicle slowly, of spilling of oil on the road and slight drizzling on the day of incident, the alleged accident was occurred. 15. A perusal of the spot mahazar-Ex.P.2 , the Investigating Officer has not stated anything as to spilling of oil on the road, break marks also not observed by the investigating officer even in Ex.P.3 rough sketch, and also investigating officer has not shown the essential ingredients as required under Para 1245 and 1248 of Chapter-xxvi of Karnataka Police Manual. Both the Courts below have not taken into consideration as to the admission made by the prosecution witnesses and only on the basis of evidence adduced in examination in chief, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the alleged commission of offence, without considering the other factors like spilling of oil on road and slight drizzling at the relevant point of time along with the admissions made by the prosecution witnesses. The accused has elicited from the mouth of prosecution witness that they cannot say exact cause for the accident. In such circumstances, the evidence of prosecution witnesses will create reasonable doubt about the rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. In view of the principles of criminal jurisprudence that benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused. But, both the courts below have considered the admissions of the prosecution witnesses but both the courts have held that the accused has committed the alleged offence only on the basis of doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur. 16. Now the question arises for consideration is whether the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur is applicable to the criminal cases. In this regard, I have relied on the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nanjundappa & Another Vs. The State of Karnataka In Criminal Appeal No. 900/2017 DATED 17.05.2022, observed that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor stricto sensu would not apply to a criminal case. Further it is observed that as far as the onus of proving the ingredients of an offence is concerned, it is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. Further it is observed that as far as the onus of proving the ingredients of an offence is concerned, it is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. Further observed that for bringing home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and death of the victim. 17. In the case on hand, prosecution has failed to prove the negligent act on the part of the accused. Investigating Officer has failed to ascertain the exact cause for this accident. Prosecution also failed to establish direct nexus between negligence of accused and death of victim. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in mind the aforesaid recent decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the considered opinion that the Courts below have committed an error in coming to conclusion that the accused has committed the alleged offences on the basis of doctrine of Res Ipsa loquitor. 18. On careful examination of the admissions of the prosecution witnesses, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. However, the Courts below have convicted the accused for the alleged commission of offences which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. 2. The Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence passed by the Prl. JMFC., Honnavar in C.C.No.413/2010 dated 04.02.2011, which is upheld by the District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar in Crl.A.No.37/2011 dated 30.10.2012 are hereby set aside. 3. The Revision Petitioner is acquitted of the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of IPC. His bail and surety bonds if any, shall stand cancelled. 4. The fine amount if any deposited by the petitioner is ordered to be refunded to him after due identification and acknowledgement. 5. Send back the trial courts records along with copy of this order.