ORDER : S RACHAIAH, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 02.07.2015 in C.C.No.562/2014 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Chitradurga and its confirmation judgment and order dated 04.07.2017 in Crl.A.No.44/2015 on the file of the Special, II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below wherein the petitioner/accused convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. 2. The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court will be considered henceforth for convenience. Factual matrix of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.03.2014 around 10.00 a.m., when the deceased Honnurappa Reddy was walking near Gayatri Circle in JCR extension at Chitradurga, the accused being a driver of autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-16-9648, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Honnurappa Reddy. Consequently, he fell down and sustained injuries and later, he succumbed to the injuries on 23.03.2014 at 7.00 p.m., while he was taking treatment in Basaveswara Hospital. Thereafter, a complaint came to be registered against the accused. The respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.61/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 8 witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and got marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. The Trial Court recorded the conviction for the aforesaid offenses. In an appeal, the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this revision petition. 5. Heard Sri. Sameer S.N., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the concurrent findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction against the accused are contrary to the evidence on record and also opposed to the facts and law. 7. It is further submitted that the eye witness-Thippeswamy who is examined as P.W.5 admitted that he is the relative of the deceased. 7. It is further submitted that the eye witness-Thippeswamy who is examined as P.W.5 admitted that he is the relative of the deceased. His evidence ought not to have been considered as he was the relative of the deceased. 8. It is further submitted that when the case is based on the evidence of sole witnesses, who is none other than the relative of the deceased. The Trial Court could have analyzed it thoroughly and properly. Even though, there are some witnesses who have been examined to support he case of the prosecution, except P.W.5, none of the other witnesses have supported the case. 9. It is further submitted that P.W.4 who is the owner of the autorikshaw has also turned hostile and not supported that the petitioner was driving the autorikshaw as on the date of alleged accident. As such, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State vehemently justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below and he further submitted that, P.Ws.1 and 5 are the witnesses who supported the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.6 and 7 are the Investigating Officers have conducted proper investigation and opined that the petitioner has committed offence and submitted their charge sheet. Such being the fact, the Courts below have rightly rendered the conviction. Therefore, interference may not be proper. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the revision petition. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, it is appropriate to refer the evidence of the witnesses to determine as to whether or not the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction against the accused is correct. 12. P.W.1 is the son of the deceased Honnurappa Reddy. He is not an eye witness to the incident. 13. P.W.2 is stated to be the witness to Exs.P.2 to 5, however, he turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 14. Similarly, P.W.3 is the witness to Ex.P.5 and he supported the case of the prosecution. 15. P.W.4 is the owner of the said autorikshaw. He did not remember the registration number of the autorikshaw. However, he admitted that he is the owner of the autorikshaw and also did not identify the driver of the auto. 14. Similarly, P.W.3 is the witness to Ex.P.5 and he supported the case of the prosecution. 15. P.W.4 is the owner of the said autorikshaw. He did not remember the registration number of the autorikshaw. However, he admitted that he is the owner of the autorikshaw and also did not identify the driver of the auto. He was treated as hostile witness. In the crossexamination, he did not give any satisfactory answer to support the case. 16. P.W.5 is an independent witness deposed in his evidence that when he was standing near a puncher shop where the accident took place by the driver of the auto. He identified the driver of the autorikshaw who is present before the Court. Immediately, after the accident, he called the son of the deceased and informed about the accident. He further deposed that immediately after the accident, he sent the injured to the hospital in the said auto of which the accident was caused. As such, he identified the offending autorikshaw. In the crossexamination, though suggestions were made that the driver of the autorikshaw drove the same very slowly and cautiously at the time of accident and the said suggestion was denied by P.W.5. 17. On careful reading of evidence of all the witnesses, evidence of P.W.7 is relevant for the purpose of considering the accident and also identifying the accused. Both P.Ws.1 and 7 are consistent in their evidence that the petitioner himself took the injured person to the hospital for treatment, immediately after the accident. However, P.W.7 identified that the petitioner who was driving the offending auto. Even though, P.W.4-owner of the auto has not supported the case of the prosecution, the petitioner was driving the autorikshaw as on the date of accident, the fact remains that, the evidence of P.W.7 has not been disbelieved to the extent of identifying the petitioner. 18. On overall reading of the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 are relevant to justify the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction. As such, it can be inferred that the findings of the Courts below are proper and appropriate. 19. However, considering the date of accident and also avocation of the petitioner is concerned, it is needless to say that the accident had occurred on 05.04.2014. On 25.02.2025, the matter is listed for final hearing. As such, it can be inferred that the findings of the Courts below are proper and appropriate. 19. However, considering the date of accident and also avocation of the petitioner is concerned, it is needless to say that the accident had occurred on 05.04.2014. On 25.02.2025, the matter is listed for final hearing. It is submitted that from the date of commission of the accident and till the date of this judgment, the petitioner has not committed any similar offence. During this period, it appears that the petitioner is the sole bread earner of the family and his family members are depending upon his income. Having considered the same, it is appropriate to extend the benefit of some modification in the sentence passed by the Trial Court in order to secure the ends of justice. 20. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 02.07.2015 passed in C.C.No.562/2014 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Chitradurga and the judgment and order dated 04.07.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.44/2015 by the Spl. II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga are modified. (iii) The petitioner is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code. (iv) The petitioner is ordered to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the aforesaid offences of which he has been convicted in stead of undergoing imprisonment within 8 weeks form today. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment as awarded by the Trial Court. (v) If the petitioner is failed to pay the fine of Rs.50,000/- within 8 weeks from today, liberty is reserved to the Trial Court to execute the sentence in accordance with law. (vi) Registry is directed to forward the entire files along with this judgment forthwith for necessary action.