The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in evidence can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT

Mohammad Nawaz, J. - The State has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, acquitting the respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC.

2. I have heard the learned HCGP appearing for the appellant/State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The case of the prosecution is that;

On 29.04.2014 at about 5.30 p.m., the accused being the driver of Maruti Omni car bearing reg. No. KA-21/N-1963 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from Panja to Bellare and when he reached near Tumbinamakki bus stop of Kalanja village in Suliya Taluk, went to the extreme right side of the road and hit against the motorcycle bearing reg. No. KA-21/Q-1897. On account of which the rider of the motor cycle by name Pavanraj was thrown to the road and sustained injuries and shifted to Mangalore hospital. However, he succumbed to the injuries at about 9.30 p.m. on 30.04.2014 and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC.

The trial Court by its Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2019 passed in C.C. No. 685/2014, acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by which, the present appeal is preferred by the State.

4. It is the contention of the learned HCGP that the trial Court has erroneously acquitted the accused in spite of the evidence of eyewitnesses namely P.Ws.1 and 2, who have clearly deposed that the accused by driving his Maruti Omni car in a rash and negligent manner, went to the wrong side of the road and hit against the motorcycle coming from the opposite direction. On account of which, the rider of motorcycle sustained injuries and succumbed to the said injuries in the hospital. He contends that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is further corroborated by Ex.P2-spot mahazar and Ex.P3-sketch and other official witnesses.

He further contends that the trial Court has erroneously relied upon Ex.D2, which was not part of the charge-sheet. There is no contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the trial Court was not proper in coming to the conclusion that the evidence of the witnesses to the spot mahazar and the evidence adduced by the prosecution cannot be believed. Hence, he submits that the reasons assigned by the trial Court for acquitting the accused is not in accordance with law and accordingly, seeks to allow the appeal.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that P.Ws.1 and 2 are not eyewitnesses. They have implicated the accused falsely stating that he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and came to the wrong side of the road and caused the accident. He submits that the accident has not occurred in the manner put-forth by the prosecution. Ex.D2-photograph of Maruti Omni clearly shows that the vehicle is on the proper side of the road, which is admitted by the Investigating Officer. He further submits that even though in the sketch it is shown that the spot is on the right side of the road towards Bellare, there is nothing on record to show as to who marked the said spot. He submits that in view of the admission given by the prosecution witnesses including the Investigating Officer, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused and therefore, seeks to dismiss the appeal.

5. In order to bring home gilt of the accused, the prosecution has got examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to 18. The defence got marked Exs.D1 and 2.

6. P.W.1 is the first informant and he is an eyewitness. P.W.2 is another eyewitness, examined by the prosecution. P.W.3 is the father of the deceased. P.W.4 is the owner of Maruti Omni car, which was involved in the accident. P.W.5 is a panch witness to mahazar-Ex.P15, under which photographs-Exs.P4 to 9 are marked. P.W.6 is the panch witness to the spot mahazar-Ex.P2 and to spot sketch-Ex.P3. P.W.7 is another panch witness to the mahazar-Ex.P15. P.W.8 is the head constable, who received the complaint f