ORDER : 1. Heard Sri. Ashok Mulage, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Sri. Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Revision Petitioner is accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under: “ORDER Accused is convicted U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/s. 279 of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months and pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo S.I. for 7 days. Accused is convicted U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/s 337 of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months and pay fine of Rs.5,00/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo S.I. for 7 days. Accused is convicted U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/s 338 of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo S.I. for 10 days. Accused is convicted U/s 255(2) OF Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/s. 304(A) of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 year and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo S.I. for 1 month. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The bail bond of the accused shall stands cancelled. Furnish a free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith.” 3. The validity of the order of conviction and sentence was questioned before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.46/2017. 4. The said appeal on merits came to be dismissed by the Judgment dated 22.09.2020. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court in this revision petition, on the following grounds: (1) That, the Judgment/order under appeal is (impugned) against the records of the case and perverse. The courts below has not properly and judiciously appreciated the record; hence come to wrong conclusion. (2) That, PW.1 Kailasayya is the informant and injured person this case in his evidence the reported all the relevant things and in his cross examination he deposed that the Rev. The courts below has not properly and judiciously appreciated the record; hence come to wrong conclusion. (2) That, PW.1 Kailasayya is the informant and injured person this case in his evidence the reported all the relevant things and in his cross examination he deposed that the Rev. Petitioner was properly driving the vehicle and he also told that at the time of accident one two wheeler suddenly taking U-turn infront of this vehicle and to rescue the vehicle driver suddenly took the vehicle at the right side and he was driving the vehicle on left side of the road and it was slow. This is enough to show that the driver is not driver the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. This is not appreciated by the courts below. (3) That, the PW.2 is the Malleshappa who is spot and seizure pancha in his cross examination he told that he does not know the contents of the panchanama and who has written that panchanama and what has been written in the panchanama, which is not appreciated by the courts below. (4) That, the PW.3 Nagamma one of the injured witness in her cross examination she told that there are speed breakers on the road and the vehicle is running on the left side of the road and she doe not identify the accused and police have not shown the accused. (5) That, the PW.4 she also told that she does not know at how much speed the driver was driving the vehicle and also admits that there are speed breakers on the road and road was also not proper and the vehicle was also on the left side of the road so question of rash and negligence driving does not arise. (6) That, the PW.5 he is the son of the owner of the tempo who has not supported the prosecution case and prosecution has treated him hostile and PW 6 is another spot and seizure pancha who has also not supported the prosecution case and PW.7 who is another injured witness, who told in his chief examination itself that he sat besides the driver and who is not going to identify accused/driver who is present in the court which is quite un-natural and he also told that he has not identified the vehicle and who is treated as hostile by the prosecution. (7) That, the PW.8 is the investigation officer who filed the charge sheet after completion of the investigation and PW.9 is the doctor who has treated the injured witness and PW.10 is the person who registered the case and also first investigation officer of this case. (8) That the prosecution has failed to examine the major witness, the doctor, who has treated many injured witnesses in this case and another major eye witnesses to the incident the person who fell from the two wheeler and who is not cited as the charge sheet witness and also the owner of the mini goods vehicle bearing No.KA-32/8705 who has been cited as CW.25 as witness in the charge sheet. (9) That, there was no material on record before the courts below regarding the test identification parade of the accused/Rev. Petitioner and hence the courts below have come to a wrong conclusion. (10) That even viewed otherwise from any angle, the impugned orders passed by the courts below are illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and records of the case besides being against the principles of natural justice. 5. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 6. One Kailasayya lodged a first information with Grameen Police, Kalaburagi, stating that, on 12.03.2007 he had hired a goods vehicle bearing No.KA-32/8705 of Shivappa to visit Savalagi (B) village for a function i.e. Mundan/Chandakarana of his son along with his family members, relatives and villagers. All of them, safely reached Salavalgi (B) village and after completion of the function, on their return to their village at about 6.00 p.m. the vehicle after crossing Pattan Cross, the driver of the Tempo driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, despite repeated advise to drive slowly. 7. In the process, he hit a motorcycle due to which the tempo turtled on the right side of the road. Inmates of the tempo fell down and suffered grievous injuries and simple injuries. Without even attending the injured persons, the driver of the tempo ran away. 8. Based on the said complaint, Grameena Police registered a case in Crime No.57/2007 initially for the offences under Section 279 , 337 and 338 of IPC read with Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act. Without even attending the injured persons, the driver of the tempo ran away. 8. Based on the said complaint, Grameena Police registered a case in Crime No.57/2007 initially for the offences under Section 279 , 337 and 338 of IPC read with Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act. When the investigation was on, one of the injured namely Annarao despite best treatment lost his life while taking treatment in Ashwini Hospital, Sholapur. As such, investigation officer invoked Section 304(A) of IPC in the matter with permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate. 9. After thorough investigation, Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet for the aforesaid offences including the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC. 10. Presence of the accused is secured and charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and trial was held. After conclusion of recording the evidence, the learned trial Magistrate recorded the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused has denied all the incriminating circumstances found against him, but failed to offer any explanation with regard to the incident nor placed any written submission as is contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C. 11. Thereafter, learned trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and taking note of the oral testimony of the injured witnesses in the very same accident and also taking note of the fact that the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle has been established by placing necessary cogent and convincing evidence on record, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred supra. 12. Sri. Ashok Mulage, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition as referred to supra, contended that, the accident has not occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner, but the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent riding of the motorcyclist. Therefore, recording an order of conviction against the revision petitioner has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 13. Alternatively, Sri. Ashok Mulage, learned counsel would contend that, in the event of upholding the order of conviction, this Court may enhance the fine amount and set aside the imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and sought for allowing the revision to that extent. 14. Per contra, Sri. Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned Judgment. 14. Per contra, Sri. Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned Judgment. He would further contend that, admittedly, there is negligence on the part of the revision petitioner in allowing the passengers to be carried in the goods vehicle. 15. He would further contend that, when the goods vehicle was full of passengers, being the professional driver, he should have taken such necessary precaution, so as to expect the unexpected on the road, so as to avoid possible accident and such a precaution has not been taken by the petitioner herein, resulting in death of a valuable human life besides several other passengers having been injured with simple and grievous injuries and conduct of the accused in not attending the injured persons and running away from the spot has been rightly appreciated by both the Courts and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 16. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 17. On such perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that, injured Annarao who is one of the inmates of the vehicle goods tempo bearing No.KA-32/8705 having suffered the grievous injuries in a road traffic accident and loosing his life in Ashwini Hospital, Sholapur is not a dispute. So also, other prosecution witnesses who have suffered the injuries is not in dispute in view of the wound certificates produced and marked before the Court vide Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.19. 18. The accused being the driver of the offending vehicle is established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. Admittedly, the photographs marked at Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 would show the nature of accident. 19. According to the complaint, it is the revision petitioner who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner while returning from Salavalgi (B) village after finishing the function. The inmates of the vehicle had repeatedly advised the accused to drive slow, but it fell on his deaf ears and all of a sudden a motorcyclist came, and to avoid the accident with the motorcycle, it is the revision petitioner who steered the vehicle, resulting in loss of balance and vehicle got turtled, resulting in, the inmates suffered simple and grievous injuries. 20. It is also found from the material evidence on record that, the accused without even attending the injured persons ran away from the spot. 20. It is also found from the material evidence on record that, the accused without even attending the injured persons ran away from the spot. 21. These aspects of the matter is established by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record. IMV report does not contain any mechanical defect. Therefore, the order of conviction recorded by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the first appellate Court needs no interference. 22. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the sentence of imprisonment needs to be set aside. 23. In a case of this nature, when the accused has not attended the injured persons and ran away from the spot and in the absence of any other mitigating circumstances, by following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi , (2015) 5 SCC 182 , grant of probation is impermissible. One valuable life has been lost and several others have been injured is sufficient enough to maintain sentence ordered by the trial Magistrate, confirmed by the first appellate Court in the above facts and circumstances of the case. 24. Accordingly, the following order: ORDER : (i) The revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed; (ii) Time is granted for the revision petitioner to surrender before the trial Court till 20.07.2025 for serving the remaining sentence.