ORDER : (G. BASAVARAJA, J.) Revision Petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chitradurga in C.C.No.1009/2013 dated 23.03.2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) which is confirmed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Crl.A.No.15/2015 dated 01.04.2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court'). 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 are that the Circle Police Inspector of Traffic Police Station, Chitradurga, submitted the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 304A of Indian Penal Code , 1860 read with Section 187, 146, read with Section 196 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'IMV' Act for short). It is alleged that on 18.09.2013, in between 9.30 and 9.45 am, the accused being the driver of Toyota Innova Car bearing Registration No. KA-29-M-5157, at Chitradurga on NH-4 drove the same in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, without following the traffic rules and dashed against the motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-16-W-1370. The impact of which is rider of the motorcycle-Tyagarajappa fell down and sustained grievous injuries and later, succumbed to the injuries while taking treatment. The offending vehicle was not having insurance. Thereby the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 279 , 304A of Indian Penal Code , 1860 read with Sections 187, 146, read with Section 196 of IMV Act. 4. After filing of charge sheet, the case was registered in C.C.No.1009/2013 and summons was issued against the accused. In response to the summons, the accused appeared before the Court and was enlarged on bail. The substance of plea was recorded. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had examined in all 12 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.12 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. 5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had examined in all 12 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.12 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused had totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and submitted his written statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, but he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 304A of IPC , 1860 read with Sections 187, 146, read with Section 196 of IMV Act and passed sentence. 6. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused preferred the appeal before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Crl.A.No.15/2015 and the same was dismissed on 01.04.201 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court, the revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the impugned judgments are illegal and against the facts and circumstances of the case, besides being arbitrary. PW.2 and PW.3, who are treated as eyewitnesses to this incident, are relatives and known to the deceased. Thus, they are interested witnesses. Moreover, they have not stated before the police in their statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that they have seen the accused at the spot. 9. PW.2 and PW.3 have categorically stated that they have given the statement before the police only once and no further statement was recorded. However, the Trial Court observes in paragraph No.33 of the judgment that, even though they have not stated about seeing the accused at the spot in their statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC but when they were summoned to the police station, they have clearly identified the accused. This approach of the Trial Court is illegal. Both the Courts have erred in observing that the petitioner has not explained anything when he was examined by the Court under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, which is not proper. This approach of the Trial Court is illegal. Both the Courts have erred in observing that the petitioner has not explained anything when he was examined by the Court under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, which is not proper. Even PW.1 has simply stated that vehicle ran at high speed, but since the road is four lanes National Highway, mere speed by itself cannot be construed as rash and negligent driving, especially when approximate speed of the vehicle is not stated. Further, he would submit that complainant is not the eyewitness and name of this alleged eyewitness has not been shown in the complaint. The owner of the offending lorry has not been examined. The power of attorney holder, who is examined as PW.7, has not produced the power of attorney. The investigating officer has also failed to collect the materials, as to who was is the owner of this vehicle and also not complied the mandatory provisions of Section 133 of IMV Act. Viewed from any angle, absolutely there is no evidence against the accused to prove the guilt of the accused. On all these grounds, he sought to allow this revision petition. 10. As against this, Sri. M.R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader, would submit that both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court. On all these grounds, he sought to dismiss this revision petition. 11. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following points would arise for my consideration: 1. Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court suffers from legal infirmities? 2. What order? 2. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.1: In the affirmative. Point No.2: As per the final order Regarding point No.1: 12. I have examined the materials placed before me. 2. What order? 2. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.1: In the affirmative. Point No.2: As per the final order Regarding point No.1: 12. I have examined the materials placed before me. The charge sheet submitted by the investigating officer reveals that PW.1 is the complainant, PW.2 is the eyewitness and inquest mahazar witness, PW.3 is the eyewitness, PW.4 is the panch witness, PW.5 is the inquest mahazar witness, PW.6 is the wife of the deceased and she is the circumstantial witness, PW.7- Hanumanthegowda is said to be the GPA holder and the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-21-5175, PW.11 - Dr.Ajaykumar, who conducted the post-mortem, PW.8 is the IMV Inspector, PWs9, 10 and 12 are the police officials who have deposed as to their respective investigation. 13. PW.1 - Mallikarjuna has deposed in his evidence that, on 18.09.2013 at about 9.30 am, when he was in college, he came to know about the accident in which his brother-in-law Thyagarajappa, died. He lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1. The Ex.P1 reveals that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Car bearing registration No.KA-29-M- 5175. On the basis of this complaint, the police have registered the case in Crime No.207/2013 against unknown accused, for the offences under Sections 279 , 304A of Indian Penal Code read with Section 187 of IMV Act and submitted the FIR to the Court as per Ex.P8 on 18.09.2013. PW.1 is not an eyewitness to this incident, but he has stated that when he visited the police station, he came to know that accused was the driver of this Innova Car at the relevant point of time, but PW.1 has not stated on which date he has identified the accused in police station, the name of the police officials, who has shown this accused was also not disclosed. 14. PW.2 - Doddananjappa and PW.3 - Onkarappa, said to be the eyewitnesses, have deposed that the accused was the driver of the Innova Car at the time of accident, but the names of PW.2 and PW.3 have not been shown in the complaint. 14. PW.2 - Doddananjappa and PW.3 - Onkarappa, said to be the eyewitnesses, have deposed that the accused was the driver of the Innova Car at the time of accident, but the names of PW.2 and PW.3 have not been shown in the complaint. During the course of the cross- examination of PW.2, he has deposed that he has not observed that at the time of accident, number of vehicles were moving on the road from Davanagere side and he has not observed in which direction motor cycle came. During the course of cross-examination of PW.3, he has clearly deposed that 3 to 4 days after the date of accident, police summoned him to the police station and recorded his statement. 15. PW.9 - Keshavamurthy, PSI has deposed that he has recorded the statement of PWs.2 and 3 on 19.09.2013. If really PWs.2 and 3 had witnessed the incident, at least one among them who claimed to be the eye witnesses would have lodged the complaint and in turn the police would have impleaded the names of PWs.2 and 3 in the complaint, but he has not done so. Only on 19.09.2013, the investigating officer has recorded the statements of the said witnesses and the same has not been submitted to the Court. Only at the time of filing the charge sheet, their names are shown and are cited as eyewitnesses to the incident. Even in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., these witnesses have not disclosed the name of the accused and they have also not deposed as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. Additionally, the investigating officer has not issued the notice to the owner of the vehicle as required under Section 133 of the IMV Act. It is the duty of the investigating officer to issue notice to the owner of the vehicle under the said Section to ascertain the name of the driver and driving license, particulars of the driver who drove the vehicle at the relevant point of time. But, unfortunately, he has not done so. Interestingly, the investigating officer has not examined the owner of the vehicle who has entrusted the vehicle to the accused. 16. PW.7- Hanumanthappa who is the power of attorney, has not supported the case of prosecution and the investigating officer has not produced a copy of the power of attorney. But, unfortunately, he has not done so. Interestingly, the investigating officer has not examined the owner of the vehicle who has entrusted the vehicle to the accused. 16. PW.7- Hanumanthappa who is the power of attorney, has not supported the case of prosecution and the investigating officer has not produced a copy of the power of attorney. Non-production of copy of power of attorney is not explained by the investigating officer. Further, the investigating officer has not collected the registration certificate of the offending vehicle so as to ascertain the owner of the vehicle at the relevant point of time, and he has also not offered any explanation as to non-production of registration certificate of the offending vehicle. 17. Apart from all these aspects, it is relevant to mention here that the investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for not taking the insurance pertaining to the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time. The provisions of Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act contemplates that whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of section 146 shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine of Rs.2,000/- or with both and for a subsequent offence shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine of Rs.4,000/- or with both. In the instant case, though the owner of the vehicle has not produced a copy of insurance and the investigating officer has not submitted the charge sheet against owner of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 196 of the MV Act. Even the investigating officer has not taken any legal action against the owner of the offending vehicle by securing the registration certificate which clearly goes to show that without conducting proper investigation, the Investigating Officer has mechanically submitted the charge sheet against this accused. 18. First of all, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was not the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time. When the prosecution has failed to prove the same, the question of driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and causing the death of deceased motorcyclist does not arise. 18. First of all, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was not the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time. When the prosecution has failed to prove the same, the question of driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and causing the death of deceased motorcyclist does not arise. Viewed from any angle, absolutely there are no evidence to prove that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 304A of IPC , 1860 read with Section 187, 146, read with Section 196 of IMV Act. Both the Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Accordingly, the impugned judgement of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court warrants interference by this Court as both the judgments suffer from legal infirmities. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in affirmative. Regarding point No.2: 19. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is allowed. ii. Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 23.03.2015 passed in C.C.No.1009/2013 by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chitradurga, which is confirmed by the judgment dated 01.04.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.15/2015 by the Court of Special, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, are set aside. iii. Revision petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 304A of IPC , 1860 read with Section 187, 146, read with Section 196 of IMV Act. iv. The fine amount if any, deposited by the revision petitioner/accused shall be refunded to him in accordance with law. v. The bail bond secured by the accused and that of his surety shall stand cancelled. vi. Registry is directed to send copy of this order along with records to the concerned Courts.