ORDER : This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Gundlupet (for short the 'Trial Court) in C.C.No.490/2007 dated 01.02.2010 and the judgment and order passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara (for short the 'Appellate Court') in Crl.A.No.9/2010 dated 16.03.2013. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 3. Brief facts as revealed from the records that may be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition are on 16.04.2007, the ASI of Gundlupet Police Station received a phone call from Forest Guard PW-1 - Puttaswamy at about 9.00 p.m, informing him about the accident which had taken place in front of forest gate situated at Gundlupet - Sulthan Batheri road. Immediately, ASI of Gundlupet police station - PW.2 had rushed to the spot and on enquiry from PW.1, he came to know about the accident that had taken place near forest gate at about 7.45 p.m, PW1 informed PW2 that the petitioner who was the driver of the Car bearing registration no.KA-09-A-6166 traveling from Gundlupet to Sulthanbatheri side drove the Car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bike bearing registration no.KL03-K-4899 which was coming from Sulthanbatheri side. The rider and pillion rider of the bike had suffered grievous injury and the rider had succumbed to the injuries. Based on the said information a case was registered by PW2 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 & 304(A) of IPC and after investigation, the police had filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. 4. After service of summons, the petitioner had appeared before the Trial Court and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its case had examined in all 6 witnesses as Ex.P1 to P6 and also got marked 8 documents as Ex.P.1 to P8. The petitioner during the course of his Section 313 of Cr.P.C., statement had denied the incriminating evidence which was available on record against him. However, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence nor did he produce any documents in support of his defence. The petitioner during the course of his Section 313 of Cr.P.C., statement had denied the incriminating evidence which was available on record against him. However, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence nor did he produce any documents in support of his defence. The Trial Court thereafter heard the arguments addressed on both sides and by its judgment and order dated 01.02.2010 convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 & 304(A) of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months each in respect of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC and for the offences punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC, the petitioner sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year and under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C, he was directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, the petitioner had filed Crl.A.No.9/2010. The Appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 16.03.2013 had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court, the petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offences. He submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the petitioner was driver of the offending vehicle that caused the accident. He submits that absolutely there is no material to show that offending vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. He therefore, submits that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below cannot be sustained. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State opposed the petition and has argued in support of impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below and submits that there is concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below which cannot be interfered with by this Court unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate before this Court that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below are either perverse or illegal. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition. 7. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed on both the sides and also perused the material available on record 8. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition. 7. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed on both the sides and also perused the material available on record 8. The prosecution in order to establish its case before the Trial Court had examined 6 witnesses and also produced 8 documents. In order to establish the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences, the prosecution is required to prove that the petitioner-accused was the person who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident and the said vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner endangering the life of general public. PW.1-Puttaswamy is the eye witness to the accident in question. He has stated about the accident had taken place at about 7.45 p.m, on 16.04.2007 in front of forest gate where he was on duty. He also stated about the involvement of the two vehicles and has stated that he had stopped a Car and asked the driver of the said Car to shift the injured person to the hospital. He has stated that he came to know that the driver of the Car was Rakesh from Mysuru. However, this witness has not identified the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The prosecution has failed to get the petitioner identified by the eye witness before the Trial Court. This witness is also a panch witness to the spot mahazar - Ex.P1 and he has identified his signature as Ex.P1(a). This witness who is the main witness of the prosecution has not stated that the driver of the offending Car was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. He has only stated that the Car which was coming in high speed had dashed against the motorcycle. The speed alone cannot be a criteria to gauge that offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. 9. PW.4 is the injured witness who was the pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing registration no.KL-03-K-4899 along with the deceased at the time of accidnet. He has categorically stated during the course of his examination-in-chief that he had not seen the driver who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. 10. PW.2 is the PSI of Gundlupet Police Station, who had rushed to the spot after receipt of phone call from PW.1. He has categorically stated during the course of his examination-in-chief that he had not seen the driver who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. 10. PW.2 is the PSI of Gundlupet Police Station, who had rushed to the spot after receipt of phone call from PW.1. Therefore, he was not an eye witness to the accident in question. The evidence of this witness is of no assistance to identify the driver of the vehicle who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident or to ascertain the manner in which the offending vehicle was driven at the time of accident. 11. PW.4 is the panch witness to the spot mahazar that was prepared on 17.04.2007 i.e., on the next day of the accident. PW.5 is another panch witness to the spot mahazar. However, he has not supported the case of the prosecution and was treated as hostile before the Trial Court. PW.6 is the Inspector of police of Gundlupet who had completed the investigation and filed charge sheet. Though he has stated during the course of examination-in-chief that he had recorded the statement of the owner of the offending vehicle who had stated that the name of the driver of offending vehicle who had caused accident was Rakesh, he has not produced any material in support of his statement. He has not produced the copy of notice issued to the owner of the vehicle under Section 133 of M.V. Act nor the reply statement of the owner of the offending vehicle was marked before the Trial Court. The prosecution has also failed to examine the owner of the offending vehicle, Anthony Raj so as to prove the identity of the driver of the offending vehicle who had caused the accident. From oral and documentary evidence available on record it is seen that there is no material to prove that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The prosecution has failed to get the petitioner identified by the eye witness and the prosecution has also failed to examine the owner of the offending vehicle. The Courts below have completely failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and therefore the findings of guilt recorded by the Courts below which are not supported by material evidence cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following :- ORDER : Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The Courts below have completely failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and therefore the findings of guilt recorded by the Courts below which are not supported by material evidence cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following :- ORDER : Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 16.03.2013 passed in Crl.A.No.9/2010 by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Gundlupet dated 01.02.2010 in C.C.No.490/2007 are set-aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offences for which he was charged.