ORDER : 1. Challenging judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed by III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at Srirangapatna), in Crl.A.no.5023/2020 confirming judgment dated 15.02.2020 passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna, in CC.no.01/2016, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri KL Sreenivas, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, case of prosecution was, at about 9:00 a.m., on 20.06.2015, when Anil Kumar (complainant) was riding his motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-11-X-8703 along with his uncle, Vasanthkumar as pillion rider from Pandavapura towards Srirangapatna, Saleem (accused) rode his motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-04-EU-7548 in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life leading to collision between two motorcycles in which accident Anil Kumar and Vasanthkumar sustained severe injuries. They were taken to Colombia Asia Hospital, Mysuru, but Vasanthkumar succumbed to injuries. It was alleged, accused ran away from spot and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (' IPC ' for short) and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (' MV Act ' for short). Based on complaint filed Crime no.350/2015 was registered by Srirangapatna Police Station. And after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 3. On appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P19. Thereafter, incriminating material was explained to accused which he denied, his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. It was submitted, accused was innocent and had not committed any of offences alleged. It was further submitted, prosecution had failed to establish commission of offences beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted, material on record was insufficient for convicting accused. 4. It was submitted, there was no dispute about occurrence of accident leading to death of Vasanthkumar and both, PW.1 (complainant) and PW.2 (eye-witness) merely stated about occurrence of accident due to accused riding his motorcycle in high speed. It was submitted, they also admitted absence of any cross roads for 100 feet on either side of accident spot. 5. PWs.3 and 5 - pillion riders on motorcycle of accused stated that accident occurred when complainant suddenly turned his motorcycle towards right side and accident was due to negligence of complainant. Despite being treated as hostile and cross-examined, nothing material was elicited from them. 6. 5. PWs.3 and 5 - pillion riders on motorcycle of accused stated that accident occurred when complainant suddenly turned his motorcycle towards right side and accident was due to negligence of complainant. Despite being treated as hostile and cross-examined, nothing material was elicited from them. 6. Further, PWs.4 and 6 are pancha witnesses, who stated that they were present at time of drawing spot mahazar and accident spot sketch marked as Exs.P2 and Ex.P6. Even they admitted that there was no road divider or turning near accident spot. Further, PWs.7 and 8 merely stated that they were owners of motorcycles involved in accident. PW.8 stated that accused was riding his motorcycle at time of accident. 7. It was submitted, deposition of PWs.9 and 11 - Investigating Officers was about conduct of investigation after receipt of complaint about accident, registration of FIR, its forwarding to Court, recording of statements of witnesses and filing of charge sheet etc. It was submitted, their deposition also would not be of much assistance as they did not state basis for alleging occurrence of accident was due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by accused. Further PW.10 - Motor Vehicle Inspector merely stated about examining vehicles involved in accident and noting damages sustained by them mentioned in Ex.P17. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not remember whether complainant's motorcycle had rear view mirrors. Suggestion that based on damages noted, it was not possible to imply occurrence of accident as alleged is denied. Above factors would indicate that there was no proper basis for conviction of accused for rash and negligent driving. Despite same, trial Court convicted accused. Even appellate Court failed to re-appreciate material on record and erred in confirming conviction. 8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon decision of High Court of Delhi in case of Manish Kumar v. State of NCT Delhi , 2025:DHC:2169 for proposition that mere driving vehicle in high speed does not imply rashness of negligence. On said grounds submitted, impugned judgments of conviction were contrary to material on record and perverse and prayed for allowing revision petition. 9. On other hand, Smt.N Anitha Girish, learned HCGP for respondent - State opposed petition. It was submitted, prosecution case was supported by several eye witnesses. On said grounds submitted, impugned judgments of conviction were contrary to material on record and perverse and prayed for allowing revision petition. 9. On other hand, Smt.N Anitha Girish, learned HCGP for respondent - State opposed petition. It was submitted, prosecution case was supported by several eye witnesses. PW.1 was rider of motorcycle on which deceased was riding pillion, PW.2 was an independent eye-witness and PWs.3 and 5 were pillion riders on motorcycle of accused, who had deposed about manner of occurrence of accident. It was submitted, admittedly, accused was riding his motorcycle with two pillion riders in high speed and PW.2 stated, after employing turn indicator, PW.1 had turned his motorcycle towards right side when accused dashed his motorcycle against it and caused accident. It was submitted, even though PWs.4 and 6 - pancha witnesses turned hostile, deposition of IOs PWs.9 and 11 was sufficient to establish spot mahazar and sketch which showed accident had occurred near western edge of road. Further, PW.10 - Motor vehicle inspector had stated that none of motorcycles suffered from any mechanical defect. Thus, there was sufficient material to substantiate conviction. In support of her submissions, she relied on decision of this Court in case of Harish v. State of Karnataka , 2025:KHC:17717 and contended that findings of both Courts were justified. On said ground sought for dismissal. 10. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments and records. 11. This revision is by accused challenging concurrent conviction for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC and Section 187 of MV Act. 12. Conviction is challenged on two grounds. Firstly, material on record at best was indicative of accused riding his motorcycle in high speed, there was no material to establish rash and negligent riding; and secondly, due to contributory negligence on part of rider of other motorcycle (i.e. PW.1), conviction was not justified. 13. Perusal of impugned judgment passed by trial Court reveals its observation that PW.1 had deposed in terms of Ex.P.1 - complaint, PW.2 - independent eye-witness corroborated same and PWs.3 and 5 - injured eye witnesses partially supported prosecution case. It noted, as per said witnesses, accident occurred when PW.1 was riding motorcycle in front of accused's motorcycle, PW.1 turned his motorcycle to right side and motorcycle of accused dashed against motorcycle of PW.1 and in accident, Vasanthkumar sustained fatal injuries. It noted, as per said witnesses, accident occurred when PW.1 was riding motorcycle in front of accused's motorcycle, PW.1 turned his motorcycle to right side and motorcycle of accused dashed against motorcycle of PW.1 and in accident, Vasanthkumar sustained fatal injuries. It found unacceptable, defence set up by accused that PW.1 suddenly turned his motorcycle to right side, lost control and fell down resulting in injuries sustained by Vasanthkumar. It also noted that attempt to discredit witnesses as being interested as they were hailing from same village as deceased was untenable. Referring to spot mahazar and sketch, it noted accident had occurred on Pandavapura - Srirangapatna road running North-South was 18ft. in width and straight at accident spot. It observed accident spot was on Western edge of road. It held, if as contended, accused was riding his motorcycle in slow speed and PW1 turned his motorcycle suddenly, even if without turn signal, accused ought to have stopped his vehicle by applying brakes. According to trial Court, such failure implied rash and negligent driving. 14. As noted above, there is no dispute about occurrence of accident involving motorcycles of accused and PW.1, leading to death of Vasanthkumar. Indisputably, it is for prosecution to establish that occurrence of accident was due to rash and negligent riding by accused. 15. Records reveal that PW.1 (complainant) has not stated that accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by accused. He merely stated accused was riding his motorcycle in high speed. Moreover, in cross-examination he admitted, there were no cross roads for about 100 feet on either side of accident spot. 16. Even PW.2 eye-witness and owner of Tea Stall in front of which accident had occurred, also stated accident occurred when complainant was crossing road by switching on turn indicator, as accused was riding his motorcycle in high speed, with two pillion riders. In cross-examination, he admitted that Mysuru - Bidar road had high vehicle density and there were no cross roads within 100 feet on either side of his shop. Likewise, PWs.3 and 5 - pillion riders on motorcycle of accused stated that accident occurred when complainant suddenly turned his motorcycle towards right side and was due to negligence of PW.1 - complainant. 17. Deposition of PWs.4 and 6 - pancha witnesses, would not be material insofar as rash and negligent riding. Likewise, PWs.3 and 5 - pillion riders on motorcycle of accused stated that accident occurred when complainant suddenly turned his motorcycle towards right side and was due to negligence of PW.1 - complainant. 17. Deposition of PWs.4 and 6 - pancha witnesses, would not be material insofar as rash and negligent riding. However, they admitted that near accident spot, there was no road divider or turning. 18. Deposition of PWs.7 and 8 - owners of motorcycles involved in accident would also not be of assistance in deciding rash and negligent riding. However, PW.8 stated that accused was riding his motorcycle at time of accident. Further, in their deposition, PWs.9 and 11 - Investigating Officers, though stated about conduct of various stages of investigation have also not stated any basis for their charge of rash and negligent riding by accused. Even deposition of PW.10 - Motor Vehicle Inspector deposed about damages sustained by motorcycles and failure to remember whether motorcycle of victim had rear view mirrors, would not be material. 19. Indeed, Exs.P2 and 6 - spot mahazar and sketch do indicate that accident occurred on a 18 ft. wide straight road running north-south, on its western edge. But, admittedly both vehicles were going in same direction and as per deposition of PW.2, PW.1 turned his motorcycle towards right side after switching on turn indicator. But, as per admission elicited from PWs.1, 2 , 3 and 5, there existed no cross road within 100 ft. of accident spot and tea shop of PW.2. If, as per deposition of PW.2, road in consideration had high vehicle density, PW.1 ought to have taken due care and caution before turning, especially, when there was no cross road for turning. This would give rise to a doubt about PW.1 contributing to accident. Especially when coupled with fact that there is no specific material to establish rash and negligent riding by accused. Further, riding of two wheeler with two pillion riders cannot by itself imply rash and negligent riding. 20. Merely, on ground that accused had suggested that there was no collision between motorcycles and it was not possible for occurrence of accident in manner alleged by referring to damages sustained by motorcycles, could not be established, rash and negligent riding could not be implied by default. 20. Merely, on ground that accused had suggested that there was no collision between motorcycles and it was not possible for occurrence of accident in manner alleged by referring to damages sustained by motorcycles, could not be established, rash and negligent riding could not be implied by default. As held in Manish Kumar 's case (supra), conviction for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC cannot be sustained on mere proof of riding in high speed. Even Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka v. Satish , 1998 (8) SCC 493 , referred to in Harish 's case (supra), has held in similar terms. It is observed, rashness innately implies recklessness coupled with state of conscious breach of duty to take care where there exists a necessity of care. However, there is no material to imply such a situation. 21. Rash and negligent riding is deemed established virtually on establishing occurrence of accident leading to death of Vasanthkumar. Same would be contrary to law referred to above. Consequently conviction of accused for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC would be contrary to material on record and as such unsustainable. 22. At same time, it is seen that accused is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 187 of MV Act and directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to under SI for 10 days. Virtually no grounds are urged challenging conviction for said offence. There is no dispute about fact that accused did not inform police immediately after accident nor availed medical assistance to victim. As per deposition of PWs.1 and 2, victim was taken by them for treatment to Columbia Asia Hospital in ambulance. Accused has not contended otherwise. Therefore, conviction for offence punishable under Section 187 of MV Act is sustained. 23. For aforesaid reasons, Revision Petition is allowed in part, impugned judgments dated 31.10.2023 passed by III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at Srirangapatna), in Crl.A.no.5023/2020 confirming judgment dated 15.02.2020 passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna, in CC.no.01/2016 only insofar as conviction for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC are set-side, accused is acquitted of said offences. However, conviction for offence punishable under Section 187 of MV Act and punishment imposed thereon is sustained. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna, in CC.no.01/2016 only insofar as conviction for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC are set-side, accused is acquitted of said offences. However, conviction for offence punishable under Section 187 of MV Act and punishment imposed thereon is sustained. If petitioner has not already deposited fine amount, petitioner is directed to remit fine amount before trial Court, within four weeks.