K.N. Phaneendra, J.

1. The State by Police Inspector of South Traffic Police Station, Hubli, laid a charge sheet against the respondent/accused (hereafter referred to as the 'accused') for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The brief facts that emanate from the charge sheet papers are that:

On 26.8.2005 at about 8.30 a.m., on Hubli Dharwad by-pass road, near Bridge No. 406/3 in Nekarnagar, Hubli, the accused being the driver of the Goods Truck bearing Registration No. KA-01/AB-4559 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and while overtaking the other vehicles, dashed against the Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-05/B-3367 which was coming from the opposite direction. Due to the accident, the driver of the Tata Sumo vehicle and one Naveen an inmate of the Tata Sumo vehicle succumbed to the injuries and CWs. 1, 8, 9, 12 and 13 sustained simple injuries. It is alleged that the accused, immediately after the accident ran away from the spot. During the course of the trial, the accused was pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the trial was held by the learned Magistrate. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined seven witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1 to 7 and Exhibits P1 to P14 were got marked. The accused was also examined u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the complicity in the matter. However, he did not choose to lead evidence on his side. On appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the trial Court recorded a judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Trial Court, sentenced the accused to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and Simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC and Simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and one month for the offence punishable under Section 234 read with Section 187 of the MV Act.

2. The said judgment of conviction and sentence was challenged before the I Addl. Dist. And Sessions Judge, Dharwad in Criminal Appeal No. 61/2009. The learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the entire materials on record, come to the conclusion that the identity of the accused has not been properly established by the prosecution and that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused was the driver of the Goods Truck and he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on that particular day. The Appellate Court holding that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, acquitted the accused. The State, being aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Court, preferred this appeal.

3. I have carefully perused the evidence recorded and the documents produced before the trial Court, appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court and also by the Appellate Court. On overall analysis of the entire materials on record, the point that would arise for the consideration of this Court is:

Whether the Appellate Court has committed any serious error in reversing the judgment of the trial Court and consequently acquitted the accused?

4. My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following reasons:

It is seen from the trial Court records that when the witnesses have examined before the court, it appears that the accused was absent. While examining P.Ws. 3 & 4, Naresh and Hemanth, the learned Counsel for the accused filed an application for exemption submitting that the