JUDGMENT H.P. Sandesh, J. - This Criminal Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order dated 31.12.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Davanagere in Criminal Appeal No. 101/2006 and the order dated 13.07.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & J.M.F.C., Honnali in C.C. No. 293/2003 and direct that the petitioner be acquitted of the offences alleged and charged against him. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 09.03.2003 at about 5.40 a.m. to 6.45 P.M. at Honnali at AMPC Yard Tar Road, while Kum. S. Dakshayani and Sri Vamadevappa were going towards Hirekalmath. At that time, this petitioner drove the Tempo Trax vehicle in rash and negligent manner from Nyamati side and dashed against Kum. Dakshayani and Sri Vamadevappa from behind. As a result, both of them died at the spot. Hence, the police have registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC read with Sections 134-A and B of Indian Motor Vehicles Act. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 14 witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 14 and got marked the documents as Exs. P1 to P12 and the material objects as M.Os. 1 to 13. The accused has not led any evidence and did not mark any documents. 5. The Trial Court, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, particularly, the evidence of P.W. 1, P.Ws. 4 and 5 and also P.W. 10, who is the owner of Tempo Trax categorically deposed that on the date of the accident, this petitioner was the driver and after the accident, he himself brought the vehicle and parked the vehicle in front of his house. 6. Having considered the evidence, the Trial Court has convicted the petitioner for all the offences and maximum sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months is awarded along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days and also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offences punishable under Sections 134-A and B of Indian Motor Vehicles Act. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, appeal is filed in Crl.A. No. 101/2006 and the Appellate Court also, on re-appreciation of the material available on record, confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved that this petitioner was the driver of the Tempo Trax at the time of the accident, who drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Apart from that, the Appellate Court also considered the evidence of other eye witnesses, particularly, P.Ws. 4 and 5, who have witnessed the accident and also observed that, in 313 statement, except denying the prosecution case, the petitioner has not stated anything and also not denied the fact that he was the driver of the Tempo Traxs at the time of the accident. Hence, the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating the evidence available on record i.e., both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Both the Courts have lost sight of the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 that both of them have not stated in their evidence that the vehicle was bring run by the petitioner in rash and negligent manner, but they have only stated that the vehicle was being run fast. In their cross-examination, according to P.W. 4, it was at the speed of 90 to 100 Kilometers fast. But, P.W. 5 says that sit was at the speed of 60 to 70 Kilometers fast. 9. He would further contend that the prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W. 5, who is the nephew of complainant and the father of Kumari Dakshayani. But, P.W. 5 says that sit was at the speed of 60 to 70 Kilometers fast. 9. He would further contend that the prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W. 5, who is the nephew of complainant and the father of Kumari Dakshayani. P.W. 4 is the friend of P.W. 5 and the evidence of the interested witnesses has been considered by the Trial Court and the same has been affirmed by the Appellate Court. The prosecution also mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W. 10. The counsel would also submit that the accident took place in the year 2003 and ten years have elapsed from the date of the accident. Hence, the imposition of sentence on the petitioner is improper and the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court ought to have invoked the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the prosecution not only relies upon the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5, who are eye witnesses witnessing the accident but, also relied upon the evidence of other witnesses, particularly P.W. 10, the owner of the vehicle, who categorically deposed that on the date of the accident, this petitioner was the driver of the Tempo Trax and he drove the vehicle and thereafter, parked the same in front of the house after the accident and both the Courts have appreciated the material on record in proper perspective. 11. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have committed an error in convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and Sections 134-A and B of Indian Motor Vehicles Act and whether it is a fit case to exercise the revisional jurisdiction? (ii) What order? Point No. (i) 12. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material on record, particularly the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5, who are the eye witnesses, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contend that these two witnesses are not the eye witnesses to the accident and their evidence is not credible. 13. Having perused the evidence of P.Ws. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material on record, particularly the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5, who are the eye witnesses, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contend that these two witnesses are not the eye witnesses to the accident and their evidence is not credible. 13. Having perused the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5, they have categorically deposed that they witnessed the accident. In the evidence of P.W. 4, he categorically says that the driver of the Tempo Trax drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Kumari Dakshayani and Sri Vamadevappa. As a result, both of them were thrown at 5 to 6 feet height from the road and thereafter, they fell down and succumbed to the injuries. The driver of the Temp Trax not even stopped the vehicle and they chased the petitioner in a car and ultimately, the car in which they chased was also not in order and however, they identified the petitioner before the Trial Court. In the cross-examination of P.W. 4, except eliciting the answer that he was having acquaintance with the complainant and he is cordial with the complainant, nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W. 4. 14. The evidence of P.W. 5 is similar to the evidence of P.W. 4. But, in the cross-examination of P.W. 5, he denies that complainant is not his relative but, he is having acquaintance with him. Both of them have categorically deposed that they were walking on the date of the accident. 15. Apart from that, P.W. 10, who is the owner of the vehicle categorically deposed that on the date of the accident, this petitioner was the driver of the Tempo Trax and after the accident, he parked the vehicle in front of his house. In the cross-examination of P.W. 10 also, nothing is elicited, but he claims that he took the vehicle and produced the same before the Circle Inspector and vehicle was also inspected and he enquired the petitioner. He also admits that the vehicle was used to distribute Vijaya Karnataka newspaper in the early morning and after that the petitioner used to bring and park the vehicle at 9.30 a.m. and again at 2.30 in the afternoon, he used to take the vehicle to the press. 16. Having perused the evidence of P.Ws. He also admits that the vehicle was used to distribute Vijaya Karnataka newspaper in the early morning and after that the petitioner used to bring and park the vehicle at 9.30 a.m. and again at 2.30 in the afternoon, he used to take the vehicle to the press. 16. Having perused the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5, they have categorically stated that there was a marking of the press in the vehicle and the P.W. 10 also corroborates with the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 that in the early morning, this petitioner used to take the vehicle for distribution of Vijaya Karnataka newspaper and thereafter, again at 2.30 in the afternoon, he used to take the vehicle to the press. 17. When such being the material available on record, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the witnesses P.Ws. 4 and 5 are not the eye witnesses to the accident cannot be accepted. The Trial Court also considered the evidence of P.W. 10, who categorically deposed that this petitioner was the driver of the vehicle on the date of the accident and after the accident, he himself has parked the vehicle in front of his house and also on the date of the accident, this petitioner took the vehicle in the early morning for distribution of Vijaya Karnataka newspaper. 18. P.W. 1 is the complainant, who has been examined before the Trial Court and the Trial Court also taking note of death of two persons in the accident and Ex. P7-sketch of the accident spot and also considering the IMV Report which is marked as Ex. P8, wherein damages are also found in respect of the offending vehicle, rightly comes to the conclusion that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner herein. 19. When such being the material available on record, I do not find any ground to invoke the revisional jurisdiction to come to an other conclusion that the order passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court suffers from illegality and its correctness and no grounds are made out to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 20. 20. However, the Trial Court, while convicting the petitioner herein, convicted the petitioner even for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC for a period of six months and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. When, the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC is invoked, the very ingredients of rash driving and negligence merges with the serious offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Hence, it requires interference and the same has to be set aside. Regarding the sentence and imposition of fine in respect of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC is concerned, the same does not require any interference of this Court, since two deaths have occurred in the accident on account of negligence on the part of the petitioner herein. 21. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and the order of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC is hereby set aside. The sentence and imposition of fine in respect of the other offences under Section 304-A of IPC and Sections 134-A and B of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act remains unaltered.