ORDER : 1. Though the matter is listed for 'Admission', with the consent of the learned counsel for both parties, the matter is taken up for 'Hearing'. 2. Heard Sri Hemantha B., learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 3. The petitioner/accused has filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 13-3-2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arakalagud, in Criminal Case No.850 of 2013 and confirmed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Criminal Appeal No.134 of 2020 dated 2-12-2022, wherein both the Courts have passed concurrent findings against the petitioner and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Section 134(a) & (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. The petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the complainant-State. 5. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 24-3-2013 at about 10.30 a.m., near Balajinagar Cross of Ganganalu Village, Gorur-Holenarasipura Road, within the limits of Arakalagud Police Station, one N.K. Darshan, rider, and PW5-Sandeep, pillion rider, were proceeding in a motorcycle, bearing Registration No.KA-13 EA-788, at that time, the accused, being the driver of Ape autorickshaw, bearing Registration No.KA-13 A-9663, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of Darshan. Due to the said impact, Darshan and PW5 sustained grievous injuries. On the way to the Hospital, Darshan succumbed to the injuries. This led to registration of F.I.R. and investigation. 6. The Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 7. Soon after initiation of charge-sheet, the trial Court took cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. 8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined in all nine witnesses as PW1 to PW9 and got marked fifteen documents as per Exs.P1 to P15. 7. Soon after initiation of charge-sheet, the trial Court took cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. 8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined in all nine witnesses as PW1 to PW9 and got marked fifteen documents as per Exs.P1 to P15. Soon after completion of the prosecution evidence, the trial Court recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The case of the accused was of total denial. 9. The trial Court, on conclusion of the trial, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has contended that the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in a proper perspective. Though eyewitness to the incident, spot and seizure mahazars witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the trial Court convicted the accused on uncorroborated testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. As per Ex.P1-complaint, Ravi, son of Nanjegowda, was the driver of Ape autorickshaw, whereas in the charge-sheet at Column No.12, the name of the accused has found place and he has been falsely implicated in the case. Mere reading of the testimony of PW1 that he lodged the complaint vide Ex.P1 and in the said complaint, he has stated that due to rash and negligent act of the driver of Ape autorickshaw, the alleged incident has occurred and at that time, Ravi, son of Nanjegowda (owner of the autorickshaw) was the driver of the autorickshaw, but the Police colluding with others filed charge- sheet against the accused. Further, the eyewitness to the incident has not stated that as on the date of accident, the accused was driving the autorickshaw. The eyewitness further stated that he came to know about the name of the accused from others and other material witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. However, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court convicted the accused based on the testimonies of the official witnesses. Thus, he prayed to allow the revision petition. 11. However, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court convicted the accused based on the testimonies of the official witnesses. Thus, he prayed to allow the revision petition. 11. Learned High Court Government Pleader has contented that both the Courts have given concurrent findings and rightly convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences. Eyewitness to the incident, owner of the autorickshaw, and the Investigating Officer have clearly identified the accused and his involvement in the accident. Hence, she justified the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by both the Courts. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the revision petition. 12. On the basis of the submissions made by the parties to the lis, the following point would arise for consideration of this Court: Whether the accused proved that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court is perverse and calls for interference by this Court? 13. The "scope of revision" refers to the limited authority of a higher Court to review judgment of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court and focusing on correcting errors in jurisdiction or gross legal/factual flaws rather than re- examining the merits of the case. This power is exercised sparingly and is intended to set right a patent defect, not to function as an automatic second appeal. The specific grounds and limitations vary between civil and criminal proceedings. Revisions can address situations where the decision is grossly inaccurate, not supported by evidence, or where relevant evidence was ignored. The review is not a fresh trial. Courts are generally barred from re-examining evidence or substituting their own judgment for the lower Court's on matters of fact unless the findings are demonstrably perverse or arbitrary. The Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the applicability and scope of revision in various decisions, which are highlighted hereunder: A. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MUNNA DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER, ( 2001) 9 SCC 631 while discussing the scope of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. at paragraph No.3 has held as under: "3. xxx xxx xxx The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. xxx xxx xxx The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged." B. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. R. SOUNDIRARASU AND OTHERS, (2023) 6 SCC 768 at paragraph No.79 has held as under: "79. Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be equated with the appellate power. A Revisional Court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure." C. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SUJAY MANGESH POYAREKAR, (2008) 9 SCC 475 at paragraph No.16 has held as under: "16. xxx xxx xxx Now it is well settled that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. A Revisional Court cannot convert itself into a regular court of appeal." Therefore, the revisional jurisdiction should normally be exercised in exceptional cases, when there is a glaring defect in the proceedings or there is a manifest error of point of law and consequently, there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 14. A Revisional Court cannot convert itself into a regular court of appeal." Therefore, the revisional jurisdiction should normally be exercised in exceptional cases, when there is a glaring defect in the proceedings or there is a manifest error of point of law and consequently, there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 14. It was the case of the complainant that on 24.03.2013 at about 10.30 a.m., the accused, being the driver of Ape autorickshaw, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of Darshan. Due to the said impact, Darshan and PW5-Sandeep sustained severe injuries. While shifting to the Hospital, Darshan succumbed to the injuries. 15. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined the first informant-Sri B.S. Rajegowda as PW1. He is none other than the uncle of the deceased, Darshan and PW5- Sandeep. On 24.03.2013 at 10 a.m., he came to know about the accident. Hence, he visited the scene of offence, where Darshan and PW5 had sustained severe injuries. While shifting Darshan and PW5 to the Government Hospital, Darshan succumbed to the injuries. Hence, he lodged Ex.P1-complaint. On the same day, the Police conducted Ex.P2-spot mahazar and seized the motorcycle and autorickshaw from the spot. 16. PW2-Suresh, eyewitness to the incident, has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. In the cross- examination, nothing worthwhile has been elicited from his evidence. 17. PW3-Ravi M.H., another eyewitness to the incident. He has also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. He has not identified the accused. Even in the cross-examination, he has not supported the case of the prosecution. 18. PW4-Suresh, a witness to Ex.P2-spot mahazar. He has also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 19. PW5-B.K. Sandeep, eyewitness to the incident. He has stated that on 24.03.2013 between 10.30 a.m. and 11.00 a.m., Darshan (rider) and himself (pillion rider) were proceeding on the motorcycle. When they reached near Balajinagar, the driver of autorickshaw came from Ganganalu Village in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. Hence, they sustained severe injuries. While shifting them to the Hospital, Darshan succumbed to the injuries. He came to know about the name of the accused from others. In the cross-examination, he clearly admitted that at the time of accident, he did not see the accused and soon after the accident, he was unconscious. 20. Hence, they sustained severe injuries. While shifting them to the Hospital, Darshan succumbed to the injuries. He came to know about the name of the accused from others. In the cross-examination, he clearly admitted that at the time of accident, he did not see the accused and soon after the accident, he was unconscious. 20. PW6-Ravi A.N., owner of autorickshaw, has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. However, he has stated that on the day of incident, the accused was the driver of Ape autorickshaw. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that on the day of accident, the accused came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of Darshan. 21. PW7-S. Raju, Investigating Officer, has stated about the investigation conducted by him. 22. PW8-Bharath, Sub-Inspector of Police, Arakalagud Police Station, has stated about registration of F.I.R. and conducting spot and seizure mahazars. 23. PW9-Dharanesh, another witness to Ex.P2-spot mahazar. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution. 24. In the instant case, PW1 is not an eyewitness to the incident and PWs.2 and 3 though eyewitnesses to the incident, but they have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW5 is an injured eyewitness. He has not identified the accused at the scene of offence. PW6, owner of autorickshaw, though stated and given details about the accused before the Police, but he has narrated different story before the Court. 25. To prove rash and negligent act of the accused, none of the witnesses has stated about the role played by the accused and they also have not identified him at the scene of offence. At the first instance, as per Ex.P1-complaint, one Ravi caused the accident. Further, in the charge-sheet, the name of the accused has been planted. 26. If it is so, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the oral testimony of eyewitnesses. The evidence of eyewitnesses is also contradictory with each other. When there is contradictory evidence, inconsistencies in their testimonies, there was no occasion for the trial Court and the First Appellate Court to come to a conclusion that the accused committed the offences in the manner stated by the prosecution. Therefore, a doubt arises in the case of the prosecution and the benefit of doubt has to extended to the accused. 27. Therefore, a doubt arises in the case of the prosecution and the benefit of doubt has to extended to the accused. 27. It is true that the revisional Court cannot lightly interfere into the judgments of the Courts below. But when there is perversity and capriciousness in appreciating the evidence by the Courts below, this Court can very well exercise its powers. Hence, the criminal revision petition filed by the accused deserves to be allowed. In view of discussions made above, the above point is answered in favour of the revision petitioner/accused. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner/accused succeeds. 28. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER: i. The criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner/accused is hereby allowed. ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 13-3-2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arakalagud, in Criminal Case No.850 of 2013 and confirmed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Criminal Appeal No.134 of 2020 dated 2-12-2022 against the petitioner are set aside. iii. The petitioner is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Section 134(a) & (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. His bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled. iv. Fine amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to him, digitally. Send a copy of this order to the trial Court along with its records. In view of disposal of the main revision petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand dismissed.