ORDER : (G. BASAVARAJA, J.) This revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Civil Judge and J.M.FC, Holenarasipura in CC.No.645/2009 dated 18.03.2013, (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short ) which is confirmed by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.74/2013 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan dated 07.12.2017 (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 giving rise to this revision petition are that, the Circle Inspector of Holenarasipura submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code , and Section 3 (1)read with 181 and 146 read with 196 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'IMV' Act for short). 4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 22.06.2009 at 5.30 p.m., near the Thattekere bus stop of Holenarasipura-Channarayapatna road, the accused rode Hero Honda CD 100 motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-13-K-206 with one Krishnamurthy as a pillion rider, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the rear side of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-13-F-1730 which was going towards Channarayapatna. Due to the said accident, the pillion rider Krishnamurthy sustained grievous injuries on his head and he succumbed to the injuries at NIMANHS Hospital, Bangalore on 25.06.2009. The accused was not having any driving license for driving the motor cycle and he has also had no insurance for the said motor bike and thereby, the accused has committed the aforesaid offences. 5. After filing charge sheet, the jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The case was registered in CC.No.645/2009 and in response to summons, accused appeared before the Trial Court and enlarged on bail. The substance of plea was recorded, having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried . 6. To prove the case of prosecution, in all, 15 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW15, 10 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. The substance of plea was recorded, having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried . 6. To prove the case of prosecution, in all, 15 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW15, 10 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded, the accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. He has not adduced any defence evidence, however during the course of cross examination of PW6, PW7 and PW9, Ex.D1 to D3 were marked. 7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC , and Section 3 (1) read with 181 and 146 read with Section 196 of IMV Act sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC . The accused is further sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- or in default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code . The accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of the fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence under Section 3(1) read with 181 of IMV Act. The accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of the fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 146 read with 196 of IMV Act. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused/revision petitioner had preferred appeal before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan in Crl.A.No.74/2013 and the same came to be dismissed on 07.12.2017. Being aggrieved by judgment of conviction by both the Courts, the revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 9. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused/revision petitioner had preferred appeal before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan in Crl.A.No.74/2013 and the same came to be dismissed on 07.12.2017. Being aggrieved by judgment of conviction by both the Courts, the revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the learned Magistrate and Sessions Court is perverse and devoid of merits and the same is liable to be set-aside. Only on the basis of complaint filed by PW1, who is alleged to have witnessed the scene, complaint is registered against the petitioner. 10. Further he would submits that it is the specific defence of the petitioner that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The bus driver stopped the bus without giving any signal. Hence, actually it is not due to negligence of the petitioner. There is no consistency in the evidence of material witnesses and none of the witnesses have deposed as to the rash and negligent act on the part of rider of the motor cycle. The rough sketch clearly indicates that there is no negligence on the part of petitioner. Both Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and sought for allow this revision petition. 11. As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. M.R.Patil, would submit that, both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court and sought to dismiss this revision petition. 12. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of material on record, 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 is illegal, perverse, capricious and suffers from legal infirmities? 2. What Order? 13. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.(1): Partly Affirmative. Point No.(2 ): As per final order. 14. I have carefully examined the materials placed before me. In all, 22 witnesses have been cited in the charge sheet. 2. What Order? 13. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.(1): Partly Affirmative. Point No.(2 ): As per final order. 14. I have carefully examined the materials placed before me. In all, 22 witnesses have been cited in the charge sheet. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 22.06.2009 at 5.30 p.m., near the Thattekere bus stop of Holenarasipura-Channarayapatna road, the accused was driving the Hero Honda CD 100 motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-13-K-206 with one Krishnamurthy as a pillion rider. The accused was driving the said motor bike in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the back side of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-13-F-1730 which was going towards Chennarayapatna. Due to the said accident the pillion rider Krishnamurthy sustained grievous injuries on his head and he succumbed to the injuries at NIMANHS Hospital, Bangalore on 25.06.2009. The accused was not having any driving license for driving the motor cycle and he has also had no insurance for the said motor bike and thereby, the accused has committed the aforesaid offences. 15. Ex.P3 is the complaint filed by PW4-Venkatesha and he has deposed his evidence that at about 02 years back, one day at 5.00 p.m., he was standing in Thattekere bus stand, by that time, one Government bus came from Holenarasipura and bus was stopped in the bus stand to de-board the passengers, by that time, one motor cycle came from Holenarasipura side and dashed towards back side of the bus. The bike came in a high speed and dashed the bus, as a result, the pillion rider namely, Krishnamurthy has sustained grievous injuries on the chest and ear. The accused was rider of the motor cycle. He and PW.5 did first aid to the injured and shifted to the Holenarsipura Hospital in ambulance. Thereafter, he lodged a complaint to the police as per Ex.P3 and thereafter, police came to the spot and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P4. These witnesses were treated as partly hostile witnesses with the permission of the Court and were cross-examined by the prosecution as to the identification of the accused. 16. CW.6 - Appannegowda stated to be examined as PW.5, has deposed his evidence that at about 2 years back, one day, when he was standing along with PW.1 near bus stand, one bus came from Holenarasipura and intercepted in the bus stand. 16. CW.6 - Appannegowda stated to be examined as PW.5, has deposed his evidence that at about 2 years back, one day, when he was standing along with PW.1 near bus stand, one bus came from Holenarasipura and intercepted in the bus stand. By that time, two persons came in a motorbike at speed of 40-45kms per hour. One Nanjunde gowda was rider of the said motorbike. PW.5 did not know the pillion rider of motor bike. Since motorbike hit the bus, both rider and pillion rider of the motorbike fell and lost their consciousness and they were shifted to hospital through ambulance. Further, he has deposed that police have not recorded his statement. This witness was treated as hostile witness with the permission of the Court. During the course of cross-examination also, he has categorically stated as to further statement said to have been recorded by the police as per Ex.P5. 17. PW.6 - C S Shivanna, driver has not supported the case of prosecution. 18. PW.7 - Usha C P, bus conductor has deposed in her evidence as to the accident. 19. PW.8- Sowbhagya, wife of deceased Krishnamurthy has deposed as to the death of her husband in the accident. 20. PW.9- Sureshkumar, owner of the motorbike has deposed nothing about this accused. 21. PW.10- Jawaregowda who is stated to be mahazar witness, has not supported the case of prosecution. 22. PW.11- Somashekaraiah, ASI, PW.12- Thimmashetty-PSI, PW.13- K Sathyannareddy and also PW.15- S Narasimhaiah, ASI have deposed as to their respective investigation. 23. PW.14 - S T Sathisha, Motor Vehicle Inspector has deposed as to the examination of the vehicle involved in the accident and also issuance of IMV report at Ex.P10. 24. PW.1-Cheluvegowda, said to be attester witness of panchanama and father of the deceased has deposed as to the accident and death of his son who died in the accident. 25. PW.3- Nagarajegowda has deposed in his evidence as to the inquest panchanama. 26. On careful examination of entire material on record, it is crystal clear that PW.2-Nagaraju, brother of deceased Krishnamurthy is not eyewitness to the incident. The material witnesses are PWs.4 and 5. PW.4- K Venkatesha has deposed as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the rider of the motorbike. 26. On careful examination of entire material on record, it is crystal clear that PW.2-Nagaraju, brother of deceased Krishnamurthy is not eyewitness to the incident. The material witnesses are PWs.4 and 5. PW.4- K Venkatesha has deposed as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the rider of the motorbike. During the course of cross-examination, he has clearly admitted that the road is down-gradient and there are humps near bus stand and also the same is not disclosed by the investigating officer. Since there are road humps near the place of accident, it is difficult to accept the evidence of PW.4 that the rider of the motorbike, rode the same in a high speed. On contrary, PW.5 who is the sole eyewitness, has clearly admitted in his evidence that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus. Absolutely there is no cogent, believable, corroborative and clinching evidence to show that the accused being the rider of the motorbike rode the same in a rash and negligent manner. However, both the Courts have not considered the admission made by eyewitness and ignored the evidence of material witnesses and passed impugned judgment which is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code . 27. With regard to the offence punishable under Section 3(1) read with 181 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act and offence punishable under Section 146 read with 196 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act are concerned, the revision petitioner has not urged any grounds to acquit him. Further, the accused has not produced his driving license to show that he was having driving license to ride the motorbike at the relevant point of time and failed to produce the copy of the insurance pertaining to the offending vehicle. Hence, considering all these aspects, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) read with 181 of the IMV Act and for the offence punishable under Section 146 read with 196 of IMV Act. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in partly affirmative. Regarding Point No.2: 28. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is partly - allowed. ii. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in partly affirmative. Regarding Point No.2: 28. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is partly - allowed. ii. Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 18.03.2013 passed in C.C.No.645/2009 by the Court of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura, which is confirmed by the judgment dated 07.12.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.74/2013 by the Court of II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hassan, insofar as offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code , are set aside iii. Revision petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 304A of IPC , 1860. iv. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed in C.C.No.645/2009 by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the judgment dated 07.12.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.74/2013 by the Court of II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hassan, insofar as offence punishable under Section 3(1) read with 181 of the IMV Act and for the offence punishable under Section 146 read with 196 of IMV Act, is confirmed. v. The revision petitioner/accused has already deposited the fine amount pertaining to the offence punishable under Section 3(1) read with 181 of the IMV Act and for the offence punishable under Section 146 read with 196 of IMV Act. The same shall be confiscated to the Government. The remaining fine amount pertaining to offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code , shall be refunded to the revision petitioner/accused in accordance with law. vi. Registry is directed to send copy of this order along with trial Court records to the concerned Courts.