ORDER : G BASAVARAJA, J. The revision petitioner/accused has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in CC No.1738/2013 dated 06.12.2017 which is confirmed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A.No.2/2018 dated 14.03.2022. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision petition are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this revision petition is that the SHO, Padubidri Police submitted a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 , 338 and 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code . It is alleged by the prosecution that on 24.02.2013 at about 1.30 p.m., near Ermal Board School, Ermal Village within the jurisdiction of Padubidre Police Station, the accused being the driver of Maruthi car bearing registration No.MH- 01-AX-5056 drove the same from Udupi towards Mangaluru side on NH-66, in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and when he reached Ermal Board School, he drove the car to the extreme right side of the road and dashed against one Sadiya Sadaf and Sayina Farvin who were standing by the side of the road, as the result of the said accident, Sayina Farvin has sustained injuries and Sadiya Sadaf has sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries, thereby the accused committed an offence under Sections 279 , 338 and 304 (A) of IPC . After submitting the charge sheet, case was registered in CC No.1738/2013. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined, in all, eight witnesses as PWs1 to 8 and 17 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to 17. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf. 5. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 , 338 and 304A of IPC and passed sentence. 6. 5. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 , 338 and 304A of IPC and passed sentence. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused/ revision petitioner had preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.2/2018 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi. The same was dismissed on 14.03.2022. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court in CC No.1738/2013 which was confirmed by the Appellate Court, the revision petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition. 7. Learned counsel for revision petitioner/accused submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is confirmed by the Appellate Court is illegal, unreasonable and opposed to law and facts. The Trial Court has totally misread the evidence on record and discrepancies which found in the evidence of PWs.1 to 8. 8. In the evidence of PWs.1 to 8, out of which PWs.1 to 4 are eye-witnesses, have not supported the case of the prosecution and marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17. Even after treating them as partly hostile witnesses, they have categorically denied that the accused being the driver of car bearing registration No.MH-01-AX- 5056, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to elicit any favourable answers from these material witnesses to substantiate the case of the prosecution. However, both the courts have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law and convicted the accused which is not sustainble in law. On all these grounds, he sought to allow this revision petition. 9. As against this, Sri. M.V. Anoop Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have properly appreciated the evidence on record and the Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. Absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned Orders passed by both the courts and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 10. Absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned Orders passed by both the courts and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 10. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of entire records, the following points would arise for my consideration: (i) Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the II Additional City Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi in CC No.1738/2013 dated 06.12.2017 which is confirmed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Udupi in Crl.A.No.2/2018 dated 14.03.2022 suffers from legal infirmity and opposed to law and facts? (ii) What order ? 11. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.1: in the affirmative Point No.2: as per final order Regarding point No.1: 12. I have carefully examined the material placed before the Court. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 24.02.2013 at about 1.30 p.m., near Ermal Board School, Ermal Village within the jurisdiction of Padubidre Police Station, the accused being the driver of Maruthi car bearing registration No.MA-01-AX-5056 drove the same from Udupi side towards Mangaluru side on NH-66, in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and when he reached Ermal Board School, he drove the car to the extreme right side of the road and dashed against one Sadiya Sadaf and Sayina Farvin who were standing by the side of the road, as the result of the said accident, Sayina Farvin has sustained injuries and Sadiya Sadaf has sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to same. Thereby accused committed offence under Sections 279 , 338 and 304 (A) of IPC . 13. The charge sheet reveals that, in all 14 witnesses were cited, out of which eight witnesses were examined. 14. PW1 - Mohammed Shoukath Ali - Father of deceased Sadiya Sadaf and injured Sayina Farvin. In his evidence has deposed that, at about two years back, one day, at about 1.30 p.m., he along with his children were standing towards left side of the road to go to Uchila Mangaluru on Udupi National Highway. By that time, a car bearing registration No.MH-01-AX-5056 came and hit to his children who were standing towards left side of the road. By that time, a car bearing registration No.MH-01-AX-5056 came and hit to his children who were standing towards left side of the road. Both sustained severe injuries and shifted to the hospital and on examination, the doctor declared Sadiya Sadaf brought dead, the another injured Sayina Farvin was shifted for higher treatment to Mangaluru and in that regard he has given complaint to the police as per Ex.P1. This witness was treated as partly hostile witness with the permission of the Court and cross-examined, in which he has denied as to the furnishing of car bearing registration No.MH-01-AX-5056. Further he has submitted that he cannot say the exact speed of the vehicle of the car and further during the cross-examination made by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, he has admitted that the accused was not driving his vehicle in a high speed and negligent manner. 15. PW2 - Sanjan Khatum - Mother of the deceased, was examined as PW2. She has deposed in her evidence that she has not witnessed as to how the driver of the car drove the same, but she has deposed in her evidence as to the injuries sustained to her children in this accident. This witness also treated as partly hostile witness with the permission of the court and cross- examined by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. Even in the cross-examination, she has categorically denied the statement said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. which is marked as Ex.P2. 16. PW.3 - Sayina Farvin - Sister of the deceased, examined as PW.3. In her evidence, she has clearly deposed that she has not witnessed the incident. This witness treated as hostile witness and was cross-examined by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. In her cross- examination, she has categorically admitted that she has not given statement to the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. which is marked as Ex.P3. 17. PW.4 - Mohammed Irshad - who is an eye witness, has also not supported the case of the prosecution as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. 18. PW5 and PW6 - who are the mahazar witnesses also have not supported the case of the prosecution. 19. PW.7 - Muralidhar Shetty and PW.8-Shivananda Valikar, - Police Inspectors - have deposed as to their respective material investigation. 20. 18. PW5 and PW6 - who are the mahazar witnesses also have not supported the case of the prosecution. 19. PW.7 - Muralidhar Shetty and PW.8-Shivananda Valikar, - Police Inspectors - have deposed as to their respective material investigation. 20. On careful scrutiny of material evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the alleged eye-witnesses including the complainant, have not supported the case of the prosecution to prove that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life as alleged by the prosecution. Though there is no evidence, against the accused, the Trial Court has convicted the accused on the basis of the assumptions and presumptions which is not sustainable under law. 21. The Appellate Court also has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and fact. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to burden of proof in offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code rendered in the case of Nanjundappa and Another v. The State of Karnataka reported in 2022 LIVELAW (5) 489, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur Stricto Sensu would not apply to criminal cases, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, confirmed by the Appellate Court warrant interference by this Court. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the 'affirmative'. Regarding Point No.2: For the abovesaid discussion, I pass the following : ORDER 1. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed; 2. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the II Additional Civil Judge, Udupi in Crl.RP No.1738/2013 dated 06.12.2017 which is confirmed by the Appellate Court i.e., the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi in Crl.A.No.2/2018 dated 14.03.2022 are set- aside; 3. The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 279 , 338 and 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code ; 4. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused, same shall be refunded to him;