1. This appeal is preferred by the State assailing the Judgment of acquittal dated 24.03.2011 passed by JMFC Basavana Bagewadi in C.C. No. 498/2006, for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter 'IPC' for short), whereunder accused has been acquitted.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that; On 15.11.2005 accused-respondent being the driver of K.S.R.T.C bus bearing Registration No. KA-36-F-446 drove the same rashly and negligently and when the bus was proceeding near Managuli in front of Managuli Police Station at about 3:45 a.m. dashed against the road side electrical pole, thereafter to a tree, due to which, several passengers sustained multiple injuries, whereas one person died, which ensued in registration of a case in Crime No. 107/2005. After investigation, Investigating Officer laid the charge-sheet against the accused.

3. After filing of charge-sheet, trial Court complied the procedure laid down under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., recorded plea of the accused, who denied the substances of accusation and claimed to be tried and the trial was fixed.

4. In order to prove its case, prosecution in all examined twenty three witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 23 and got marked thirty one documents as Exs.P-1 to 31. Apart from that, during the course of cross-examination, six documents were got marked as Exs.D-1 to D6. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded as required under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating materials against him, which he denied and submitted that he would not lead any defence evidence on his behalf.

5. After hearing the arguments of both sides, impugned judgment of acquittal came to be passed. Assailing the same, present appeal is preferred by the Appellant-State.

6. Heard Sri. Maqbool Ahmed, learned High Government Pleader appearing for the Appellant-State and Sri. B.R. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

7. The learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and contended that, the trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence of eyewitnesses, who have categorically deposed that the accident in question has occurred because of rash and negligent act of the respondent-accused. Further, the trial Court without assigning any reasons and without holding proper discussion of the evidence on record has straight away came to a conclusion that the evidence is not satisfactory and convincing, resulting acquittal of accused. He further contended that, the respondent-accused has taken a contention that the accident in question occurred because of the jam of the staring. But the Motor Vehicle Inspector has clearly stated that there is no mechanical defect, under circumstances, the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused by relying upon Ex.P-30. He further contended that without appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court has come to a wrong conclusion and same is liable to be set aside by convicting the respondent-accused. On these grounds, he prayed to set aside the impugned Judgment by allowing the appeal.

8. Per contra Sri. B.R. Patil, learned counsel for respondent-accused would contend that, though witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, they have not stated about the rash and negligent act of the accused. He further contended that, the accident in question has taken place at about 3:45 a.m. and at that time all the passengers in the bus were sleeping and nobody has witnessed how the accident has occurred. As such, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused. He further contended that, the State has not made out any good grounds so as to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and same deserves to be confirmed.

9. Of the witnesses, P.Ws.1, 6 to 19 are the injured eyewitnesses who were inmates of the said bus. They have deposed to the effect that they were traveling in the said bus, in which respondent-accused was the driver. Deceased-Sharanamma was also one o