JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Siddapur in C.C. No. 684/2016 dated 27.10.2018 wherein the accused-respondent has been acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. Though the appeal is listed for admission but with the consent of both the counsels, the appeal is taken up for disposal.

2. I have heard the learned Addl. SPP for the appellant-State and the learned counsel for the respondent-accused.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution are that on 27.04.2016 at about 6.45 p.m. the accused being the driver of Maruti Omni vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-03/P-9188 drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and hit to a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-31-X-0417 and as a result of the same the complainant’s brother and the complainant sustained grievous injuries and subsequently the brother of the complainant succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the complaint a case has been registered in Crime No. 87/2016. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused.

Learned Magistrate after filing of the charge sheet secured presence of the accused and his plea was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and as such the trial was fixed. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it has got examined seven witnesses and got marked fourteen documents and also two material objects were marked. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded by putting incriminating material as against him, the accused denied the said material and he has not lead any defence evidence nor got marked any documents. After hearing both the sides the impugned judgment came to be passed.

Challenging the legality and correctness of the same, the State is before this Court.

4. The main grounds urged by the learned Addl. SPP are that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence placed on record. PW1 is an injured eyewitness and the pillion rider, who is the brother of the complainant, has expired due to the accidental injuries. Though nothing has been elucidated in the cross-examination the trial Court without properly appreciating his evidence, has acquitted the accused.

5. It is his further submission that, the spot mahazar Ex.P.3 and the map produced along with it would depict the fact that the said vehicle came to the wrong side of the road and caused the accident. In that light, the principles of res ipso loquitor is applicable. Without looking into the said principles of law the trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused. Further, the respondent has not denied that he was not riding the said vehicle and he has not given any proper explanation. Even then the trial Court erroneously acquitted the accused. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and to convict the respondent-accused.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued and submitted that the evidence and material placed on record indicates that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver the accident had occurred. Even in the cross-examination of PW1 he has clearly stated that he is unable to say exactly on which side of the road the accident took place, the road was in a curvature and he has not witnessed the offending vehicle earlier to the accident. All these circumstances have been properly appreciated and thereafter the accused has been acquitted. There are no good grounds made out by the State so as to allow the appeal. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

7. I have carefully and cautiously heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and perused the records.

8. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, 7 witnesses were examined. PW1 is the brother of the deceased and he is the injured complainant. In his evidence he has deposed that on the date of ac