ORDER : (G. BASAVARAJA, J.) Accused has preferred this Revision Petition against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed in C.C.No.118/2011 dated 27.10.2012 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Kodagu Madikeri (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) which is confirmed by the Prl.Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri in Criminal Appeal No.66/2012 dated 27.03.2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short). 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 Sub Inspector, Rural Circle, Madikeri submitted the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 , 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code . It is alleged that on 03.10.2011 at 7.00 p.m., near the gate of Government First Grade College at Napoklu Town, the accused was driving Eicher Mini Lorry bearing registration No.KA-12-A-1397 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-12-J-6257. As a result of the accident, Ajjettira Sanjay died and CW.12 P. Roshan Kariyappa sustained injury. Thus, the accused has committed offence under Sections 279, 337 , 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code . 4. After filing of the charge sheet, the case was registered against this accused in C.C.No.118/2011 and summons was issued to him. In pursuance of summons, accused appeared before the Trial Court and enlarged on bail. Charges framed and read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the case of prosecution, in all 8 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 8 and 8 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. He has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the alleged offences and passed sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section s 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Having heard on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the alleged offences and passed sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section s 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. For the offence punishable under Sections 337 of Indian Penal Code , imposed a fine of Rs.250/- and similarly for the offence punishable under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code , imposed a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred appeal before the Prl.Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri, in Crl.Appeal No.66/2018 which came to be dismissed on 27.03.2018. Being aggrieved by the judgments of conviction of both Courts, the revision petitioner/accused has preferred this present revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court is arbitrary, capricious, illegal and not maintainable either in law or on the facts of the case and in all probabilities of the evidence on record. Both the Courts failed to note that the accident was only due to rash and negligent act of the deceased Sanjay. The deceased and the injured were under the influence of alcohol and thereby, hit the parked van and the damage to the vehicle which makes it very clear that it is a mistake of the rider of the two wheeler and not of the lorry driver. 7. Further, it is submitted that both the Courts have failed to note that the sketch prepared by the police, which makes it very clear that the van was parked on the left side of the road towards Napoklu that too, out of the tar road and the motorcycle came from the opposite side and dashed to the parked van. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that, it is a mistake of the revision petitioner/accused. 8. Further, the auto driver who was examined as PW.6 deposed that he saw the accident just 30 feet away from the spot. He further deposed that he called the uncle of deceased and informed about the accident and helped to shift the injured to the hospital. 8. Further, the auto driver who was examined as PW.6 deposed that he saw the accident just 30 feet away from the spot. He further deposed that he called the uncle of deceased and informed about the accident and helped to shift the injured to the hospital. Nowhere in his evidence or the statement, he spoken about the presence of the petitioner in the spot. Neither the injured PW.3 nor the eye witness PW.6 claimed that, the petitioner after the accident, fled from the spot. By this, it is very clear that the bike hit the parked vehicle. Further, both the Courts held that though the petitioner took the said defence that he has not explained where exactly the vehicle was parked and hence the petitioner failed to prove his defence. The spot mahazar and the sketch make it very clear that the vehicle was parked on the left side of the road towards Napoklu. The police document itself is very clear and under such circumstances, the petitioner ought to have been acquitted. Further, both the Courts failed to note that the place of occurrence of accident was a turn and there was no light. The time of the accident was about 7.00 p.m. and the rider of the motorcycle can see the opposite vehicle with the light of the motorcycle and accordingly, due to lack of light of the motorcycle, hit the van and this fact also is not appreciated by both the Courts. Further, though PW.3- Palyada Roshan who is an injured claimed that, it was the fault of the van coming from opposite side, but failed to explain under what circumstances, the accident took place. Under such circumstances, the evidence of PW.3 cannot be taken into consideration and both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record. On all these grounds, he sought to allow this revision petition. 9. On contrary, Sri. Venkat Satyanarayana, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court. On this ground, he sought to dismiss the revision petition. 10. On this ground, he sought to dismiss the revision petition. 10. Having heard the arguments advanced on both sides and on perusal of the material placed before me, the following points would arise for my consideration. i. Whether the revision petitioner/accused has made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court as the same is illegal, perverse, capricious and suffers from legal infirmities? ii. What order? 11. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.1: in affirmative Point No.2: as per final order. Regarding point No.1: 12. I have carefully examined the material placed before me. The case of the prosecution is that Sub Inspector, Rural Circle, Madikeri has submitted the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 , 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code . It is alleged that on 03.10.2011 at 7.00 p.m., near Government First Grade College at Napoklu Town, the accused was driving Eicher Mini Lorry bearing registration No.KA-12-A-1397 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against bike bearing registration No.KA-12-J-6257. As a result of the accident, Ajjettira Sanjay died and CW.12 P. Roshan Karyappa sustained injury. 13. To prove the case of prosecution, in all 8 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 8 and 8 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8. This case arise out of the complaint filed by PW.1-Ajjettira Vitala Ganapathy, in which he has stated as under: PW.1 has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. 14. PW.2 - C K Somanna, who is said to have been a mahazar witness has deposed as to the contents of Ex.P2 - spot mahazar. 15. PW.3- Palyada Roshan who is the pillion rider of the motorcycle has deposed in his evidence that in the year 2011, after completion of auyudha pooja, he and Sanjay were coming from H P Gas Agency, Napoklu on Madikeri Road in a bike bearing registration No.KA-12-J- 6267 at about 7.00 p.m., near Government Senior College, Napoklu, a Eicher lorry bearing registration No.KA-12-A-1397 came and hit the bike. As a result, he and Sanjay sustained grievous injuries and this accident occurred due to high speed and negligent act on the part of driver of lorry. The driver of the lorry drove the same in a zigzag manner. As a result, he and Sanjay sustained grievous injuries and this accident occurred due to high speed and negligent act on the part of driver of lorry. The driver of the lorry drove the same in a zigzag manner. After the accident, he was having consciousness and after some time, he lost his consciousness. Then, he was shifted to Kaveri Hospital in Mysuru whereas, Sanjay succumbed to injuries while shifting to hospital. PW.3 has sustained injuries to his forehead, hands, legs etc., and his tooth was broken and his statement was recorded before the police on 11.10.2011. 16. PW.4- Thithira Uttaiah and PW.5- Bopanna have deposed their evidence that after the accident, they came to know that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of Eicher vehicle. 17. PW.6 – P S Subramanya has deposed in his evidence that he is familiar to the accused and he was the driver of offending vehicle and he is also familiar with i Roshan and also deceased Sanjay. On 03.10.2011, when he was proceeding in his auto from Madikeri to Napoklu at about 7.00 p.m., near Government First Grade College gate, Napoklu, an accident occurred between Eicher lorry and a bike and by that time, he was coming on the backside of the bike at a distance of 30 feet and the bike bearing registration No.KA-12-J-6267 was proceeding on front side of his vehicle towards Napoklu and it was driven by Sanjay and Roshan was a pillion rider. The accused was the driver of Eicher lorry and he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bike, as a result of which, the rider of the bike and a pillion rider fell on the ground and sustained grievous injuries and a rider of the bike wore helmet. Both rider and pillion rider of the bike has lost their consciousness and thereafter, PW.6 called Vitala Ganapathy over phone. Thereafter, Thirodi Raja, Ajjettira Bopanna and PW.1 came and they shifted the injured to the Government Hospital, Napoklu and from there to the Madikeri Hospital for higher treatment. Then, he came to know that Sanjay was succumbed to injuries and also not able to furnish the registration number of Eicher vehicle. 18. PW.7 – D M Puneeth, Police Sub Inspector and PW.8 – R Satish Kumar, CPI have deposed as to their respective investigation. Then, he came to know that Sanjay was succumbed to injuries and also not able to furnish the registration number of Eicher vehicle. 18. PW.7 – D M Puneeth, Police Sub Inspector and PW.8 – R Satish Kumar, CPI have deposed as to their respective investigation. 19. The case of prosecution is that the complainant is not an eyewitness to the alleged incident. Only on the basis of phone message by PW.6- P S Subramanya, he came to know about the accident. In Ex.P1 – complaint, it is shown that, one complaint is received through messenger by name Sabu and the name of said Sabu is not shown in the complaint. Further, PW.1 has deposed that he has received a call from one Sabu Subramanya about the occurrence of accident and whether Sabu Subramanya and Sabu are one and the same has not been disclosed by the prosecution. Though Sabu has witnessed the incident on 03.10.2011, the investigating officer has recorded the statement on 05.10.2011. In examination- in-chief of PW.6, he has clearly stated that he has not furnished vehicle number of the offending vehicle to the investigating officer. Further, the investigating officer has recorded the statement that PW.6 has furnished the lorry number as KA-12-A-1397. Though the complaint averments reveal that PW.6 has witnessed the incident on 03.10.2011, the investigating officer has not recorded his statement on the same day or subsequent day. Instead, he recorded the same only on 05.10.2011. Even though he has recorded the statement of material eyewitness on 05.10.2011, he has not submitted the same to the Court on the same day and not submitted the statement of all the witnesses till filing of charge sheet. Only at the time of filing charge sheet, he has produced the statement of all the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The delay in recording the statement of material witness i.e. PW.6 and in submitting the same to the Court, will create reasonable doubt as to whether PW.6 has witnessed the accident? Additionally, PW.6 has not disclosed the registration number of his Auto which was ridden by him at the relevant point of time. Even in the complaint also, it is not disclosed the registration number of the Auto. Additionally, PW.6 has not disclosed the registration number of his Auto which was ridden by him at the relevant point of time. Even in the complaint also, it is not disclosed the registration number of the Auto. Except the material evidence of PW.6, there is no evidence to show that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the relevant point of time. Furthermore, in the charge sheet also, this witness P S Subramanya alias Sabu is not shown as eyewitness. 20. Lastly, the investigating officer has not explained as to the delay in recording the statement of all the witnesses. The wound certificate of PW.3 – Roshan at Ex.P6 reveals that A male patient by name Roshan Karyappa aged 24 years who is inhabitant of Pelur Village, Bellamah post, Madakere admitted to the hospital with alleged road traffic accident on 03.10.2011 at around 7.30 p.m. near junior college, Napoklu, Madikere, while he was traveling in bike as pillion rider when overtaking of bike, suddenly, a lorry hit from opposite side. The contents of this wound certificate are not consistent to the evidence of PW.3 and also to the contents of Ex.P1-complaint. This inconsistency in evidence of prosecution witnesses will create doubt as to the alleged rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Since there is no cogent, convincing, corroborative, trustworthy and believable evidence before this Court, the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused. It is also necessary to mention here that the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court as to burden of proof in offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code in the case of Nanjundappa and Another v. The State of Karnataka reported in 2022 LIVELAW (5) 489 wherein it is held that the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur Stricto Sensu would not apply to criminal cases. 21. Keeping in mind the aforesaid judgment and also facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court, warrants interference by this Court as the said judgment suffers from legal infirmities. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in affirmative. Regarding point No.2: 22. Hence, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court, warrants interference by this Court as the said judgment suffers from legal infirmities. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in affirmative. Regarding point No.2: 22. 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 27.10.2012 passed in C.C.No.118/2011 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Kodagu Madikeri, which is confirmed by the judgment dated 27.03.2018 passed in Crl.Appeal No.66/2012 by the Court of the Prl. Sessions Judge, Kodagu Madikeri, are set aside. iii. Revision petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 , 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code . iv. The fine amount if any, deposited by the revision petitioner/accused shall be refunded to him in accordance with law. v. Registry is directed to send copy of this order along with records to the concerned Courts.