Dipak Misra JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In this appeal preferred by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the assail is to the judgment and order dated 21.06.2011 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 2284 of 2009 passed by the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad whereby the High court has concurred with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hospet in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2008 wherein the appellate court had set aside the sentence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the Indian Penal Code") and affirmed the conviction and sentence for offences punishable under Sections 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code as passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hospet.
3. The broad essential facts leading to the trial of the accused-appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') are that on 25.03.2006, about 10.15 a.m., the accused-driver was driving an unregistered new tractor on National Highway No. 13 at bypass road near the open well of one Golya Naik. The tractor turned turtle towards the left side and caused simple injuries to many people who were sitting inside the trailer of the tractor and grievous injuries to three persons. Injured Kotraiah succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Be it noted, all the injured persons were travelling along with their goods in the trailer of the said tractor.
4. After the accident took place, the concerned police sub-inspector (PSI) reached the spot, recorded the statement of the injured persons and after returning to the police station registered an FIR and thereafter proceeded to the spot, prepared the sketch map, seized the vehicle in question and sent the dead body for post-mortem. After completing the investigation, he placed the charge-sheet before the Competent Court for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
5. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the allegations, examined 10 witnesses and got a number of documents marked as exhibits P-1 to P-24.
6. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure., denied the incriminating material brought against him and took the stand that the accident occurred due to mechanical failure and not because of rash and negligent driving. However, he chose not to adduce any evidence.
7. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused of the offence ........