The main legal point established is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and in this case, the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the accused's guilt for the alleged offences.

JUDGMENT

Mohammad Nawaz, J. - Heard the learned HCGP for the appellant - State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - accused.

2. The State has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 25.06.2018 passed in C.C. No. 1546/2016 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada, acquitting the accused - respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.04.2016 at about 8.30 a.m., within the jurisdiction of Bantwal Traffic Police Station, the accused being the driver of a KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-19-F-3045 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from B.C. Road towards Mangalore, so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and near a place called Ramalkatte, dashed the bus against a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-19-EN-6592, on account of which, both the rider as well as the pillion rider of the motor cycle fell down on the road. The pillion rider by name Santhosh sustained head injuries and injuries on other parts of the body. He was immediately shifted to Father Mullar Hospital, wherein he succumbed to the injuries.

4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the accusation made against him and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to establish its case, got examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Ex. P17.

5. The trial court after considering the evidence and material on record, acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC. Aggrieved by the said impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.

6. The contention of the learned HCGP is that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 who are the eye witnesses to the incident. He submits that PW1 is none other than the rider of the motor cycle and he is the first informant. He is also injured in the accident, as such it cannot be disputed that he is an eye witness. PW1 has clearly deposed that the accused being the driver of the offending bus in question, drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, on account of which, the deceased sustained head injuries and died in the hospital.

7. The learned HCGP submits that the evidence of PW1 is further corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. The Motor Vehicle Inspector - PW6 has stated that the accident has occurred not on account of any mechanical defect. Hence, he submits that the prosecution has established the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He submits that the reasons assigned by the trial court is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the appeal.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the evidence of PW1 cannot be accepted as there are material discrepancies in his evidence. He has not gone to the police station to lodge the complaint and therefore, registration of the case on the basis of the complaint lodged by PW1 itself is doubtful. She submits that even according to PW1, he tried to overtake a car and thus the motorcycle came in contact with bus and therefore, it cannot be said that the accused was either rash or negligent in driving the bus. She submits that PW2 and 3 have been treated hostile by the prosecution and therefore, their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution case. Hence, submits that there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, she seeks to dismiss the appeal.

9. The case of the prosecution is that the accused being the driver of the bus bearing registration No. KA-19-F-3045 drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle and caused the accident on account of which, the pillion rider of the motor cycle sustained injuries and succumbed to the said injuries.

10. It is not in dispute that the accused was driving the KSRTC bus in question when the accident took place. However, the prosecution has to establish t