ORDER : RAVI V. HOSMANI, J. Challenging judgment dated 07.12.2022 passed by I Addl. Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in Crl.A.no.141/2020 confirming judgment dated 23.07.2020 passed by Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere, in CC.no.389/2018, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, case of prosecution was, at about 4:00 p.m., on 14.03.2018, when Prathap was riding his motor cycle bearing registration no.KA-18-ED-6154 from Lakkavalli towards Maridibba on Tarikere - Lakkavalli road, accused - driver of Alto Car bearing registration no.KA-01-MC-5620 drove it in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, which led to collision between Alto Car and Motor Cycle, in which accident, Prathap sustaining severe injuries and died on spot. It was also alleged that accused stopped his car and ran away from spot thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (' IPC ' for short) and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (' MV Act ' for short). On investigation, chargesheet was filed for said offences. 3. It was submitted, accused appeared before trial Court and pleaded not guilty. During trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses and got marked Exhibits P1 to P14. Thereafter, incriminating material was explained to accused, which he denied and his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. 4. It was submitted, prosecution had failed to establish commission of offences as alleged beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted, there was no sufficient material to establish PWs.2 and 3 had witnessed accident. It was submitted, when they stated about driver of Car stopping it and running away after accident and they were at distance of 60-70 feet, their identification of accused as driver of Car was doubtful. It was alternatively contended there was no negligence on part of accused in causing accident as deceased himself was responsible for accident. Despite same, trial Court convicted accused. It was further submitted, prosecution had neither alleged nor established antecedents. Hence, trial Court was not justified in imposing sentence of simple imprisonment (SI) for a period of one year for offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of paying fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 30 days, which was excessive and called for interference. 5. Hence, trial Court was not justified in imposing sentence of simple imprisonment (SI) for a period of one year for offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of paying fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 30 days, which was excessive and called for interference. 5. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of B. Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka reported in 2008 (5) SCC 730 , where punishment of SI for six months along with fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, in case of fatal accident was affirmed, as an alternative prayer for reduction of sentence, in case this Court were to conclude that there was no scope for interference with finding on conviction. 6. On other hand, Smt.Anitha Girish, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State opposed petition. It was submitted, in order to substantiate charges, prosecution had examined 11 witnesses and got marked 14 exhibits and both Courts on detailed examination of entire material on record arrived at concurrent findings that accused was guilty of offences alleged. It was submitted, witnesses examined by prosecution included an eye-witness to accident in question, apart from other witnesses duly supporting prosecution. Thus, there was no scope for interference. On said ground sought for dismissal of revision petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused impugned judgment and record. 8. This revision petition is by accused against concurrent findings convicting him for offence punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC and Section 187 of MV Act. 9. Before embarking on examination of legality of impugned judgments, it would be apposite to refer to scope for interference against concurrent findings in petition under Section 397 of CrPC. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Soundirarasu and Ors. , reported in 2023 (6) SCC 768 has held, "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. 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." 10. Likewise, in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. , reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 , it is held that revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. 11. From submissions made, it is seen that there is no dispute about occurrence of accident involving Alto Car and Motor Cycle resulting in death of Prathap. Challenge is on findings about causing accident by accused due to his rash and negligent driving of Car. 12. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court referred to deposition of PW.1 - complainant, who stated about receipt of information about accident and filing of Ex.P.1 - complaint. PWs.2, 3 and 11 are eye-witness to accident. PW.2 stated that on 14.03.2018 at 4:00 p.m., he was riding Motor Cycle on Tarikere - Lakkavalli road towards his land, when Prathap on his motorcycle was going ahead. At that time, driver of Alto Car coming from opposite direction drove it in rash and negligent manner overtook a Lorry without regard to oncoming traffic in great speed and dashed against Prathap's motorcycle causing accident, in which Prathap sustained severe injuries to head etc. and died on spot. He also stated, driver of Car stopped it and ran away. PW.3 was another eye-witness, who stated that even he was riding motorcycle about 60-70 feet behind Prathap and saw occurrence of accident in manner described by PW.2. In their cross-examination, only elicitation was that PW.2 was at distance of 50-60 feet from accident spot. 13. and died on spot. He also stated, driver of Car stopped it and ran away. PW.3 was another eye-witness, who stated that even he was riding motorcycle about 60-70 feet behind Prathap and saw occurrence of accident in manner described by PW.2. In their cross-examination, only elicitation was that PW.2 was at distance of 50-60 feet from accident spot. 13. PW.4 witness to Ex.P.3 - mahazar, deposes about occurrence of accident between car and motorcycle and drawing of Ex.P.3. He also admits his signature on it. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that he is unaware of contents of mahazar. He however denies suggestion that he was not at accident spot at time of drawing mahazar. 14. PW.5, other mahazar witness supported prosecution. In his cross-examination, suggestions that he was not present at accident spot at time of drawing mahazar, that he is not aware of its contents and he had signed it at request of police on demand. 15. PW.6 is pancha witness to Ex.P.6 - seizure mahazar drawn while seizing Alto Car and Motorcycle of Prathap. PW.7 owner of Alto car, admitted involvement of his car in accident and stated that accused was driving car at time of accident. In cross examination, it is elicited that he was seated in passenger seat besides accused at time of accident. PW.8 - police constable stated about receiving written complaint and registration of FIR in Cr.no.42/2018. 16. PW.9 - Investigating Officer stated about conduct of investigation, recording statement of witnesses and filing of charge-sheet. In his cross-examination suggestion made by mahazar was not drawn at accident spot and statement of CWs.2 to 4 were not recorded on same day and accident vehicles not seized, denied. 17. PW.10 - Motor vehicle Inspector deposed about damages sustained by both vehicles. In cross-examination, it is elicited that neither of vehicles suffered from mechanical defect. Though PW.11 was also examined as eye-witness, he stated that after Prathap overtook his motorcycle and went ahead, Prathap met with accident. He stated that by time he reached spot, accident had already occurred, Prathap had died and he accompanied PW.1 to register complaint. Even after being treated hostile and cross-examined by Public Prosecutor, he reiterated same. 18. Though PW.11 was also examined as eye-witness, he stated that after Prathap overtook his motorcycle and went ahead, Prathap met with accident. He stated that by time he reached spot, accident had already occurred, Prathap had died and he accompanied PW.1 to register complaint. Even after being treated hostile and cross-examined by Public Prosecutor, he reiterated same. 18. In light of above, trial Court observed that deposition of PWs.2 and 3 about accused driving Alto Car in rash and negligent manner overtaking Lorry and causing collision between Alto Car and motorcycle on which deceased Prathap was riding, leading to Prathap sustaining injuries and suffering death would substantiate all necessary ingredients to constitute offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. It noted, one of grounds urged that accident was caused due to victim - Prathap consuming alcohol and riding Motorcycle was not substantiated as Ex.P7 - post-mortem report did not mention alcohol amongst contents of stomach. It noted, challenge against PWs.2 and 3 being eye-witnesses also failed and deposition of Motor Vehicle Inspector - PW.10 about damages sustained by both vehicles indicated collision was with high impact establishing rash and negligent driving by accused. It observed, accident had occurred at 3 feet away from edge of road which was straight would indicate accused driving Car towards extreme edge of road on his right side which would imply rash and negligent driving. It noted, PW.4 turning hostile would not impact prosecution case as mahazar could be held established based on deposition of PWs.8 and 9 - IOs. 19. It is also seen not only deposition of eye-witnesses - PWs.2 and 3, but also PW.7 - owner of Car, who stated that he along with accused had fled from accident spot fearing wrath of public, would substantiate ingredients of offence under Section 187 of MV Act. 20. In Appeal, appellate Court considered very same contentions urged herein and upon re-appreciation of entire material concurred with findings of trial Court. 21. Insofar as first contention that prosecution failed to establish commission of offence by accused beyond reasonable doubt, it is seen findings of both Courts noted that Ex.P3 - spot mahazar showed accident spot was 3 feet away from right side edge of 18 ft. wide road, would indicate that driver of Alto Car had driven it on wrong side and caused accident. wide road, would indicate that driver of Alto Car had driven it on wrong side and caused accident. Same is established from deposition of PWs.2 and 3 - eye-witnesses to accident, who stated that driver of alto car over took Lorry in great speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle on which Prathap was riding. Though, accused denied he was driving car in rash and negligent manner, PW.7 - owner of Car also stated that accused was driving Car at time of accident and he was in front passenger seat and they both had run away from spot after accident. Though, PW.4 - one of mahazar witnesses turned hostile, deposition of PWs.8 and 9 - IOs would support mahazar. Even deposition of PW.10 - Motor Vehicle Inspector about damages sustained by both vehicles involved in accident would support prosecution case. Thus, there is sufficient basis for conclusions arrived at by trial Court and appellate Court about occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving by accused. 22. Insofar as quantum of punishment, trial Court has imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- for offences punishable under Section 279 of IPC and 187 of 187 of MV Act respectively, which are not challenged. 23. Challenge on quantum relying on decision in B. Nagabhushanam 's case (supra), is confined to punishment under Section 304-A, which prescribes punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term extending to two years or with fine or both. Trial Court imposed sentence of SI for one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, SI for 30 days. 24. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182 , after taking note of rising number of fatal motor accidents and need for deterrence reduced sentence to six months SI. Indeed, learned counsel for accused would be justified in contending that prosecution did not allege any antecedents. At same time however, accused failed to lend assistance to injured after accident and fled away from accident spot. Even if it were to escape public outrage, he failed to report accident to police or surrender before police. Considering above factors and fact that accused was aged 40 years at time of accident and driver by occupation while keeping in mind ratio in Saurabh Bakshi 's case (supra), it is found fit to grant limited reprieve. 25. Even if it were to escape public outrage, he failed to report accident to police or surrender before police. Considering above factors and fact that accused was aged 40 years at time of accident and driver by occupation while keeping in mind ratio in Saurabh Bakshi 's case (supra), it is found fit to grant limited reprieve. 25. For aforesaid reasons, Revision Petition is allowed in part, impugned judgment dated 07.12.2022 passed by I Addl. Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in Crl.A.no.141/2020 confirming judgment dated 23.07.2020 passed by Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere, in CC.no.389/2018, are modified only insofar as sentence in respect of offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC by reducing sentence to SI for six months and increasing fine amount to Rs.25,000/- out of which Rs.20,000/- is ordered to be paid to family members of deceased under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. and in default to pay fine amount to undergo further SI for 30 days.