Conflicting witness testimonies and lack of corroborating evidence can lead to the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused, resulting in acquittal.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Revision petition is preferred by the accused against his conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for offence punishable under Ss. 279, 304 (A) of IPC and Sec. 184 of M.V. Act, which is confirmed by the appellate Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State and perused the material on record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 15/4/2009 at 11:15 am, the accused being the driver of goods Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-31/4160 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from Sirsi to Banvasi endangering human life and public sa fety and hit against the motorcycle of Shivanand Veerabadrappa Gouda, at Sugavi, as a result of which he sustained grievous in juries and later succumbed to the said injuries.

4. To establish the guilt o f the accused, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 12 and marked Ex.P1 to 10 . The trial Court vide judgment dtd. 17/9/2010 in Criminal Case No.14/2009, convicted and sentenced the accused for the of fence punishable under Ss. 279 , 304(A) o f IPC R/w. 184 of M.V. Act.

5. The accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.115/2010 on the file of the Fast Track court Sirsi, which was dismissed vide judgment dtd. 30/12/2011.

6. The trial Court relied on the evidence of PWs.3 , 6 and 7, namely the eye witnesses and held that in view of their evidence , the evidence of PWs. 4 and 5 is doubtful. It is observed that the accused has not explained in his statement the reason for the accident and there are no circumstances made out to suspect the oral evidence o f PWs.6 and 7 and evidence o f o fficial witnesses namely PWs.8 to 12 .

7. The Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the vehicle of the accused went beyond the middle portion of the road and caused the accident and the accused did not control the vehicle in the curve. It is further observed that the accused has not taken any precautionary measure and even a slow going vehicle can be said to have driven rashly and negligently. The accused crossed the middle partition o f the road and proper precautionary steps are not taken, so as to avoid possible accident. It is held that the accused drove his goods Auto Rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and there fore he is guilty o f o ffence punishable under Ss. 279, 304(A) o f IPC R/w.184 o f M.V. Act.

8. According to the prosecution PWs.3 to 7 are the eye witnesses to the accident in question. Out of them PWs.4 and 5 have not supported the case of prosecution. The said witnesses were traveling in the goods Auto Rikshaw which was driven by the accused. The trial court has observed that, PWs.4 and 5 turning hostile is not fatal to the prosecution, since the said witnesses used to carry the vegetables in the vehicle of the accused and there fore it is quite natural that they have not supported the prosecution case .

9. According to PWs.6 and 7 they were proceeding in their respective motorcycles behind the motorcycle o f the deceased. They saw the goods Auto Rikshaw driven by the accused coming from the opposite direction from Sirsi side in a high speed and hit against the motorcycle o f the deceased near Sugavi cross, where were there is a curve . On account o f the said accident deceased Shivanand Gouda sustained grievous in juries and he was shifted in an Ambulance to the hospital and for further treatment while he was being shifted to KIMS hospital he died on the way to the hospital.

10. From the evidence o f the aforesaid prosecution witnesses it can be gathered that the accused was driving the Auto Rikshaw and near Sugavi cross, the Auto Rikshaw hit against the motorcycle ridden by the deceased, which resulted in his death.

11. According to PW.3 he was riding his motorcycle about 50 to 75 ft., behind the motorcycle of the deceased and the accident occurred at a distance o f 200 meter from Sugavi Cross. He has stated in the cross examination that he cannot sa