ORDER : The revision petitioner/accused feeling aggrieved by judgment of first appellate Court on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, at Chikodi, in criminal appeal No.176/2013 dated 10.10.2014, preferred this present revision petition. 2. Parties to the revision petition are referred with their ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The factual matrix leading to the case of prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that on 17.05.2012 at about 2.40 p.m. near Hukkeri, Government Hospital on the bus stand Court circle, the accused being driver TATA ACE Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-49-2344 driven the same with high speed in rash and negligent manner. On account of such actionable negligence in driving the vehicle, dashed to kumari Deepa who was going to hospital along with her mother and as a result, accident in question occurred. On account of accidental injuries, Kumari Deepa succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident, while she was under treatment in the hospital. On these allegations made in the complaint, the case was registered in Hukkeri P.S. in crime No.54/2012 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for brevity) and Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred as ‘M.V.Act’ for brevity). The investigating officer on completion of investigation filed charge sheet. 4. In response to the summons, accused has appeared before the trial Court and contested the case. The accused pleaded not guilty to the accusation leveled against him and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in order to prove the accusation leveled against accused relied oral evidence of PWs.1 to 9 and documents Exs.P.1 to 16. 5. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, came to be recorded. Accused denied all the incriminating material evidence appearing against him and claimed that false case is filed. Accused relied his own evidence as DW.1. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC, and 134 R/W Section 187 of MV Act and imposed sentence as per order of sentence. 6. Accused challenged said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before First Appellate Court on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, at Chikodi in Criminal Appeal No.176/2013. 6. Accused challenged said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before First Appellate Court on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, at Chikodi in Criminal Appeal No.176/2013. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciating the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of trial Court in convicting the accused and imposition of sentence. However modified the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 304A of IPC reducing to three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-. 7. Revision petitioner-accused feeling aggrieved by concurrent findings of both Courts below preferred this revision petition contending that both the Courts below have committed serious error in relying evidence of P.W.1, who is mother of deceased of Kumari Deepa which is not corroborated by any other evidence on record. The prosecution has failed to prove the culpable rashness of negligence of accused in driving the vehicle leading to the accident in question. The finding recorded by both Courts below are not in conformity with spot features available at spot of accident recorded under spot panchanama Ex.P.6 and sketch map Ex.P.7, as the result recorded improper reasoning in holding accused guilty for the offences alleged against him. The abrupt appearance of Kumari Deepa across the vehicle was not anticipated by the accused and as a result, the child came in contact with vehicle and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The approach and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by both the Courts below and the findings recorded cannot be legally sustained. Therefore, prayed for allowing the revision petition and to set-aside the judgment of both the Courts below. Consequently to acquit the accused from the charges leveled against him. 8. In response to the notice, learned HCGP has appeared for respondent-State. 9. Heard the arguments of both sides. 10. On careful perusal of oral and documentary evidence placed on record by prosecution, it would go to show that accident occurred on 17.05.2012 at about 2.40 p.m. near Hukkeri Government Hospital on the bus stand Court circle. Accused was driver of TATA ACE Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-49-2344 and driven the vehicle with high speed in a rash and negligent manner. On account of such actionable negligence of accused in driving the vehicle, dashed against Kumari Deepa. Due to which she succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Accused was driver of TATA ACE Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-49-2344 and driven the vehicle with high speed in a rash and negligent manner. On account of such actionable negligence of accused in driving the vehicle, dashed against Kumari Deepa. Due to which she succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The prosecution to prove the said allegation mainly relies on the evidence of P.W.1 the mother of deceased Kumari Deepa and P.W.4 eye witness to accident. The said evidence is sought to be corroborated with spot panchanama Ex.P.6 and sketch map Ex.P.7 and that of investigating officer P.Ws.8 and 9. 11. The accused was driver of TATA ACE Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-49-2344 at the time of accident, place of accident, Kumari Deepa succumbed to accidental injuries in the Government Hospital while she was under the treatment. The damages found on the vehicle as per the evidence of P.W.7 MV inspector and MV report Ex.P.13 are the facts not in serious dispute and the same also can be borne out from material evidence on record. Therefore, prosecution is required to prove that accident in question has occurred due to actionable negligence of accused in driving the vehicle involved in the accident and as a result Kumari Deepa succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The prosecution has to establish the nexus between death of Kumari Deepa and actionable negligence of accused in driving the TATA ACE Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-49-2344 leading to the accident in question. 12. P.W.1-mother of the deceased Kumari Deepa has deposed to the effect that she was going to Hukkeri Government Hospital for treatment of her daughter Kumari Deepa and she was proceeding by side of the road near Government Hospital with her two years old sons on arms and deceased Kumari Deepa was following her from the back side. The TATA Tum-Tum vehicle driven by accused came from back side and dashed against Kumari Deepa, who was following her. The wheels of the TATA Tum-Tum ran over her stomach and the injured daughter Kumari Deepa was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital and while she was under treatment, succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. 13. The TATA Tum-Tum vehicle driven by accused came from back side and dashed against Kumari Deepa, who was following her. The wheels of the TATA Tum-Tum ran over her stomach and the injured daughter Kumari Deepa was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital and while she was under treatment, succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. 13. The another material witness relied by the prosecution is P.W.4, who deposed to the effect that about 6 to 7 months back he was proceeding from Hukkeri bus stand to Court circle near Government Hospital, at that time TATA Tum-Tum vehicle came from bus stand towards circle and dashed against small girl. Thereafter, the vehicle stopped at some distance and injured girl was shifted to hospital for treatment and he went to the hospital. While returning from hospital, he did not found driver of vehicle and the girl succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident while she under treatment in the hospital. 14. Accused got examined as DW.1 and deposed to the effect that one side of the road, the road repair work was in progress and in the remaining portion of the road vehicles were moving. The machinery and vehicle were stationed for forming tar road. The labourers, were cleaning the road with machine, the dust was emanating. When he reached near Government hospital, frightened girl came in contact of vehicle from back side. Due to which she succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. 15. The above referred evidence of P.W.1 and 4 with defence of accused as DW.1 has to be appreciated with reference to spot features recorded in spot panchanama Ex.P.6 and sketch EX.P.7 while deciding the issue of actionable negligence of accused in driving the vehicle involved in the accident leading to the accident in question. P.W.2 panch witness to the spot panchanama has not supported the case of the prosecution. However, he admitted his signature on spot panchnama at Ex.P.6 as per Ex.P.6(a). The evidence of P.W.1 and 4 coupled with the evidence of D.W.1 would go to show that place of accident in front of Government hospital, Hukkeri is not in dispute. The evidence of P.W.9 would go to show that he has prepared spot panchanama Ex.P.6 and sketch map Ex.P.7, so also taken photographs of the place of accident Ex.P.4. The evidence of P.W.1 and 4 coupled with the evidence of D.W.1 would go to show that place of accident in front of Government hospital, Hukkeri is not in dispute. The evidence of P.W.9 would go to show that he has prepared spot panchanama Ex.P.6 and sketch map Ex.P.7, so also taken photographs of the place of accident Ex.P.4. Therefore, the contents of the spot panchanama Ex.P.6 and sketch map Ex.P.7 can be looked into for deciding the issue of actionable negligence of accused with reference to the evidence of P.W.1 and 4. 16. The spot features recorded under Panchanama Ex.P.6 and sketch map Ex.P.7 would go to show that road at the place of accident runs south to north. The width of the road is 30 feet and there is kachcha road of 4 feet on the eastern side and the western side half portion the work of forming new tar road was in progress. The place of accident is shown towards eastern side at a distance of 4 feet towards western side. It is defense of accused that P.W.1 was proceeding by western side of the road and girl who was following her mother abruptly came across the vehicle and the back portion of vehicle hit to her, due to which she succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. 17. P.W.1 has stated in the cross examination that she was going to Hukkeri Government Hospital for getting treatment for her daughter Kumari Deepa, since she was unwell and she was following her from back side. Further, her two years son was on her arms. P.W.1 admits in her cross examination that road repair work was in progress and on other side of the road, the vehicle and machineries were stationed and she was proceeding from the western side of the road at the place of accident having 4 to 5 feet kachcha road on either side of the road. P.W.1 further admits, the labours were cleaning the road and dust was emanating, due to which the daughter Kumari Deepa moved to the side and her shirt was stucked to the cleaning vehicle. P.W.1 further admits, the labours were cleaning the road and dust was emanating, due to which the daughter Kumari Deepa moved to the side and her shirt was stucked to the cleaning vehicle. P.W.4 is eye witness to the accident also admits in the cross examination that the road repair work was in progress to the western side, further the vehicles and machines attending to the road work were stationed and he was back to the Tata Tum-Tum vehicle involved in the accident. The photograph at Ex.P.4, would go to show that substantial portion of the road towards western side was blocked due to road repair work and vehicles have to move in the remaining portion of the road and on the kachcha road. P.W.1 categorically admitted that she was proceeding from western side of the road to go to Government hospital. The spot features recorded in the spot panchanama Ex.P.6 and sketch map Ex.P.7 would go to show that Government Hospital is situated to the eastern side of the road and the formation of new tar road work was in progress to the western side. Out of the 30 feet width road substantial portion is covered for forming new tar road and remaining portion towards eastern side is being used by passers of road and to move the vehicle. Looking to the place of accident shown in the sketch map Ex.P.7 and taking note of the fact admitted by P.W.1 that she was proceeding from western side of the road where the work was in progress, it is evident that P.W.1 along with children was moving towards eastern side to go to Government Hospital, Hukkeri, situated at eastern side. looking in to the above referred admission of P.Ws.1 and 4, coupled with spot features recorded under the spot panchanama Ex.P.6 and sketch map Ex.P.7, the tender age child Kumari Deepa, crossing the road, the defence of accused that the child remained unattended by mother P.W.1 while proceeding to Government Hospital Hukkeri towards eastern side and due to which she abruptly appears against vehicle, as a result accident in question has occurred appears to be more probable. If examination in chief of P.Ws.1 and 4 without the test of cross examination on the face of it is to be accepted, then also there evidence specifically does not speak anything about actionable negligence of accused leading to the accident in question. If examination in chief of P.Ws.1 and 4 without the test of cross examination on the face of it is to be accepted, then also there evidence specifically does not speak anything about actionable negligence of accused leading to the accident in question. On other hand there evidence only speaks about factum of accident in front of Government Hospital Hukkeri and daughter of P.W.1 Kumari Deepa succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The admitted evidence alone cannot be said as sufficient evidence to hold the actionable negligence of accused in driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. 18. The prosecution alleges that accused has not taken injured to the hospital and failed to give information about the accident to the nearest police station. The evidence on record would go to show that P.Ws.1 and 4 have seen accused in the police station and given statement before the police. The accused was very much present at the spot of accident. The injured Kumari Deepa was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital Hukkeri which is just in front of the place of accident. Therefore, the contrary finding recorded by both Courts below that the accused did not attend the injured and failed give information to the police cannot be legally sustained. The Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 with reference to the place of accident found in Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 in the light of the defence of accused and admission of P.Ws.1 and 4 during their cross examination, committed error in holding that the accused is guilty of the offences alleged against him. The said finding recorded by the Courts below cannot be legally sustained and interference of this court is required. Consequently, proceed to pass the following: ORDER Revision petition filed by revision petitioner/accused is hereby allowed. The judgment of first appellate Court on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, at Chikodi, in criminal appeal No.176/2013 dated 10.10.2014, confirming the judgment of trial Court C.C.No.362/2012 dated 27.09.2013 are hereby set-aside. Accused is acquitted from the charges leveled against him for punishable under Section 279 , 304A and IPC and Section 187 MV Act. Registry to send back records with judgment to Courts below.