ORDER : 1. Accused is before this court in this Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Turuvekere in C.C.No.332 of 2009 dated 19.06.2014 and the judgment and order dated 08.11.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10012/2014 by the Court of V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner herein was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC & Section 134(A) and (B) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in C.C.No.332 of 2009. It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.02.2009, at about 8.30 p.m. when PW.1 and 2 were standing near Harikaranahalli gate, the tractor bearing registration No.KA-06-T-7190 which came from Turuvekere side, dashed against the two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-44-H-4295, in which deceased Sannarangegowda S/o Nanjundegowda, was riding and as a result, Sannarangegowda, who had suffered grievous injuries in the accident in question, had succumbed to the same subsequently when he was being shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru at about 10.30 p.m. on 20.08.2009. The petitioner in response to the summons received by him in C.C.No.332 of 2009 had appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its allegation against the petitioner, had examined seven charge sheet witnesses before the Trial Court as PWs.1 to 7 and got marked eight documents as Exs.P1 to Es.P8. Three material objects were got marked as MOs.1 to 3. No defence evidence was led on behalf of the petitioner nor was any document got marked in support of his defence. The trial Court after recording the statement of the petitioner/accused as provided under Section 313 of CrPC, heard the arguments addressed on both sides and vide the impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2014 passed in C.C.No.332 of 2009, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 279, 304A of IPC and Section 134(A) and (B) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner had filed Criminal Appeal No.10012 of 2014, which was dismissed by the Court of V Additional District and Section Judge, Tiptur on 08.11.2016, confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two concurrent judgments and orders of conviction and sentence, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the material on record does not prove that the petitioner was driving the offending tractor in a rash and negligent manner on the alleged date of incident. He submits that prosecution has failed to prove that petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner on the alleged date of incident. He submits that there is an inordinate delay in filing the FIR, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution in the present case. PWs.1 and 2 have identified petitioner/accused for the first time in the Court. Considering the material on record it appears that PWs.1 and 2 were planted as eye witnesses to the accident in question. Accordingly, prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and submits that the Courts below are justified in convicting the petitioner for the charge sheeted offences. Even the sentence imposed is just and proper. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition. 6. The prosecution in order to prove its charges against the petitioner has in all examined seven charge sheet witnesses as PWs.1 to 7. PW.1 is the first informant and eye witness to the alleged incident to the accident in question. PW2, who is the friend of PW1, allegedly was present along with PW.1 near Harikaranahalli gate bus stand and was a eyewitness to the accident. PWs.3 and 4 are the punch witnesses to the spot mahazar-Ex.P2. PW5 is a retired ASI, who was on duty at Dandinashivara Police Station, Thuruvekere, during the relevant time. PW6 is the Inspector of Police, who had completed the investigation in the present case and filed charge sheet against the petitioner. PW7 is the Inspector of Police, who had arrested the petitioner on 27.09.2009 and produced him before PW.6. 7. PW5 is a retired ASI, who was on duty at Dandinashivara Police Station, Thuruvekere, during the relevant time. PW6 is the Inspector of Police, who had completed the investigation in the present case and filed charge sheet against the petitioner. PW7 is the Inspector of Police, who had arrested the petitioner on 27.09.2009 and produced him before PW.6. 7. Ex.P1 is the first information, Ex.P2 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P3 is the inquest mahazar, Ex.P4 is the seizure mahazar, Ex.P5 is the IMV Report, Ex.P6 is the post mortem report, Ex.P7 is the FIR in Crime No.9 of 2009 registered by Dandinashivara Police Station and Ex.P8 is the Rough sketch of the spot of accident. 8. For the purpose of proving the charges against the petitioner, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 becomes relevant. PW1 has stated that on 28.02.2009 at about 08.30 pm, when he and PW2, who is his friend, were standing in front of Harikaranahalli gate bus stand, the offending tractor which came from Turuvekere side dashed against the two wheeler driven by the deceased which came from the opposite side and thereafter the driver of the tractor escaped from the spot of accident without stopping the offending vehicle. This witness has stated that he and PW2 shifted the injured Sannarangegowda in a Maruti Omni Car initially to the Govt. Hospital at Thuruvekere and on advice, thereafter when the injured was being shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru, the injured breathed his last at about 10.30 p.m., and thereafter the dead body was brought back to Turuvekere Hospital and was kept in the mortuary. 9. This witness has not stated that he had seen and identified the driver of the offending vehicle. However, this witness has identified the petitioner in the open Court and has stated that petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle. This witness has also not stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. This witness has only stated that the offending vehicle was driven in a high speed. During the course of cross- examination, this witness has admitted that the police station is at a distance of 50 metres from Thuruvekere Police Station. This witness has only stated that the offending vehicle was driven in a high speed. During the course of cross- examination, this witness has admitted that the police station is at a distance of 50 metres from Thuruvekere Police Station. The accident in question had taken place at about 08.30 p.m, on 28.02.2009 and injured Sannarangegowda had died while being shifted to hospital at about 10.30 p.m, and immediately thereafter the dead body was brought back and kept in the mortuary of the Government hospital. However, the first information was submitted by PW1 on 01.03.2009 at about 11.00 p.m, There is a delay of more than 12 hours in approaching the police. The same has not been explained by the prosecution. 10. Perusal of the first information would go to show that the registration number of the offending vehicle was not given by PW1. PW1 as well as PW2 have stated that since it was dark they could not note the registration number of the offending tractor which had caused the accident. PW2 during the course of his examination-in-chief has not stated that he had seen the petitioner driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Even this witness has identified the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle only in the open Court. PW1 has stated that accident in question had taken place at a distance of 10 to 15 feet from the place where they were standing and according to PW1 and PW2, they were standing in front of Harikaranahalli bus stand at the time of accident. Ex.P8 is the rough sketch of the spot of accident. As per the said document, the accident spot is at a distance of 50 feet from the place where PW1 and PW2 are allegedly standing. Undisputedly, the accident in question had taken place at about 08.30 p.m. It is not the case of the prosecution that there was light at the spot of accident. Even Ex.P8 does not reflect that there was any light at the spot of crime so as to enable PW1 and PW2 to identify the driver of the vehicle from a distance of about 50 feet. Undisputedly, PW1 and PW2 had failed to note the registration number of the offending vehicle and they have categorically stated that since it was dark they could not see the registration number of the offending vehicle. Undisputedly, PW1 and PW2 had failed to note the registration number of the offending vehicle and they have categorically stated that since it was dark they could not see the registration number of the offending vehicle. The delay caused in filing the FIR therefore becomes relevant. 11. PW1 and PW2 have only stated that driver of the offending vehicle was driving the said vehicle in a high speed. It has come on record during the course of their deposition that the tractor was driven at a speed of 60 kilometre per hour. The speed is a relative term which is required to be considered based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Merely for the reason that a person was driving the vehicle in high speed, it cannot be said that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Neither PW1 nor PW2 have stated that the offending vehicle was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Satish , (1998) 8 SCC 493 in paragraph no.4 has observed as follows: "4. Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not be speak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur". There is evidence to show that immediately before the truck turned turtle, there was a big jerk. It is not explained as to whether the jerk was because of the uneven road or mechanical failure. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur". There is evidence to show that immediately before the truck turned turtle, there was a big jerk. It is not explained as to whether the jerk was because of the uneven road or mechanical failure. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle had submitted his report. That report is not forthcoming from the record and the Inspector was not examined for reasons best known to the prosecution. This is a serious infirmity and lacuna in the prosecution case.” 13. Unless the prosecution successfully proves that the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver of the said vehicle, the driver of the offending vehicle cannot be held guilty for the charge sheeted offences. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. The investigation officer during the course of investigation had issued notice to the registered owner of the offending vehicle and also had recorded the statement of the registered owner, namely Smt. Lalithamma. The said witness would have been the best person to state that who was the person driving the offending vehicle on the date and time of accident. However, for the reason best known to the prosecution, the said witness has not been examined in the present case. 14. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 is not sufficient to conclusively give a finding that the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle on the alleged date of incident. PW1 in his first information has stated that petitioner was driving the offending vehicle which he had brought on lease. However, PW1 has stated that he does not know the registration number of the vehicle. If that is so, a doubt arises as to how PW1 has mentioned in the first information that driver of the tractor had brought the said vehicle on lease. PW3 and PW4 have not supported the case of the prosecution and on the other hand, they have stated that they were summoned to the police station and Ex.P2 spot mahazar was signed by them in the police station and not at the spot of accident. PW3 and PW4 have not supported the case of the prosecution and on the other hand, they have stated that they were summoned to the police station and Ex.P2 spot mahazar was signed by them in the police station and not at the spot of accident. The evidence of PWs.5 to 7 is in no way helpful to the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. 15. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects of the matter and in my considered opinion have erred in convicting the petitioner for the charge sheeted offences. Under these circumstances, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below cannot be sustained. 16. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER: (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Turuvekere in C.C.No.332 of 2009 dated 19.06.2014 and the judgment and order dated 08.11.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10012/2014 by the Court of V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur are set aside. (iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the charge sheeted offences. His bail bonds if any, stands cancelled. (iv) The fine amount deposited if any by the petitioner shall be refunded.