ORDER : 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 09.02.2017 passed in Crl.A. No. 53/2014 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere whereunder the judgment of conviction dated 24.04.2014 passed in C.C. No. 339/2011 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Honnali, convicting petitioner - accused No. 1 for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and sentence thereon has been affirmed. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15.03.2011 at about 05.00 pm accused No. 1 - petitioner herein was driving tractor – trailer bearing No. KA-17-TA 9963, KA-17-TA-9964 from Dodderehalli village towards Madenahalli in high speed in a rash and negligent manner due to which the tractor and trailer toppled and Basavanagowda who was sitting on the manure load in the tractor trailer was struck below the tractor trailer, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Charge sheet has been filed against petitioner - accused No. 1 for offence under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC. Prosecution in order to prove the charge has examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. Statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate, on hearing the arguments on both sides, has convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.800/- for offence under Section 279 and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Petitioner - accused No. 1 challenged the said judgment of conviction before the Sessions Court in Crl.A. No. 53/2014 and the same came to be dismissed on merits confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that P.W.1 is the complainant who is the brother of the deceased, he has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated hostile. He further submits that P.W.2 and P.W.3 are panchas to the spot mahazar and they have also not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated as hostile. He submits that merely based on the evidence of P.W.4 who has been treated as hostile, the trial Court passed the order of conviction. On careful reading of evidence of P.W.4 it will not establish that petitioner was driving the tractor trailer in a rash and negligent manner. He submits that merely based on the evidence of P.W.4 who has been treated as hostile, the trial Court passed the order of conviction. On careful reading of evidence of P.W.4 it will not establish that petitioner was driving the tractor trailer in a rash and negligent manner. Version of P.W.4 stated in chief examination, stated in his cross- examination by APP and in his cross-examination by counsel for accused is not trustworthy as he has stated different versions in his evidence. He submits that the accident has occurred at 05.00 am on a road measuring 10 feet and therefore, the accident cannot be due to the result of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner. without considering these aspects learned trial Judge has convicted the petitioner and the appellate Court erred in re-appreciating the evidence on record. 4. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent – State would contend that P.W.4, even though he has been treated as hostile, in his cross-examination by APP has admitted that he was an eye witness and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner. The Motor Vehicle Inspector has stated that accident has not occurred due to any mechanical defect. Considering all these aspects learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the petitioner and learned appellate Judge has also rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties this Court has perused the impugned judgments and trial Court records. 6. Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner it is only the evidence of P.W.4 that requires consideration. Case of the prosecution is based on evidence of eye witnesses, namely P.W.4 to P.W.6. Out of them, P.W.5 and P.W.6 have completely turned hostile. P.W.4 even though has been treated as hostile by the prosecution, he has given some admissions in the cross-examination done by APP. P.W.4 in the chief- examination has stated that they had gone to the land for loading manure and at that time petitioner was driving the tractor trailer, deceased Basavanagowda and other 4 persons were standing near the road, at that time tractor trailer toppled down and fell on the deceased Basavanagowda and therefore, he sustained injuries and died. As P.W.4 has not supported the case of the prosecution in his chief-examination, he has been permitted to be treated as hostile by the APP. As P.W.4 has not supported the case of the prosecution in his chief-examination, he has been permitted to be treated as hostile by the APP. He has admitted the suggestion that after loading manure he and deceased Basavanagowda had sat on the tractor trailer. He has also admitted that petitioner was driving the tractor trailer in high speed, it toppled near Dodderahalli village, he also fell down, deceased Basavanagowda was struck under the tractor trailer and as a result of that, he died. He has also admitted the suggestion that the accident occurred due to high speed and negligent driving by the petitioner. subsequently, learned counsel for accused, by filing application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., has cross-examined P.W.4. In that cross- examination P.W.4 has stated that he has not seen the accident. He has stated that he and Malleshappa were near cow dung pit. He has admitted the suggestion that he has not seen the accident. Considering the fact that subsequently P.W.4 has been cross-examined by counsel for accused on a different date by filing an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. the trial Court opined that he has been won over. Considering the entire evidence of P.W.4 it is seen that he is not consistent in his statements. In chief examination he has stated that the accident occurred due to brake failure of tractor trailer, in cross- examination he has stated that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor trailer and in cross-examination by the counsel for accused he has stated that he has not seen the accident. Inspite of all this the trial Court has based its decision of conviction on the sole evidence of P.W.4. Evidence of P.W.4 cannot be solely relied upon to pass order of conviction against petitioner for offence under Section 289 and 304-A of IPC. Other eye witnesses, namely, P.W. 5 and P.W.6 have totally turned hostile. Considering the same, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, benefit of doubt is to be extended to petitioner. Without appreciating the evidence of P.W.4 in proper perspective learned magistrate has erred in convicting the petitioner based on the sole testimony of P.W.4. Even the learned Appellate Judge has not properly re-appreciated the evidence on record and erred in confirming the conviction passed by the trial Court. Therefore, benefit of doubt is to be extended to petitioner. Without appreciating the evidence of P.W.4 in proper perspective learned magistrate has erred in convicting the petitioner based on the sole testimony of P.W.4. Even the learned Appellate Judge has not properly re-appreciated the evidence on record and erred in confirming the conviction passed by the trial Court. Considering all these aspects the impugned judgments are required to be set aside and petitioner is required to be acquitted. 7. In the result, the following; ORDER : i. Revision petition is allowed. ii. Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 24.04.2014 passed in C.C. No. 339/2011 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Honnali is set aside. iii. Judgment passed in Crl.A. No. 53/2014 dated 09.02.2017 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Davanagere is set aside. iv. Petitioner – accused No.1 is acquitted for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC.