This appeal arises out of the judgment passed in

C.C.No.798/2011 dated 08.07.2014 by the Principal Civil Judge

and JMFC, Kadur, wherein the respondent/accused was

acquited for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and

304A of Indian Penal Code, (for short hereinafter referred to as

'IPC').

2.

In brief the case of the prosecution is that on

25.07.2011 at about 01:30 p.m. in order to purchase the

medicines in the medical store situated opposite to the

Government Hospital, the deceased tried to cross the National

High way running towards Birur towards Kadur and at that

time, the respondent being the rider of the motor cycle bearing

registration No.KA-18-5401 drove the vehicle with high speed

in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to Smt.

Lalithamma. She fell down and sustained injuries to her head.

Immediately, she was admitted to Kadur Government Hospital

and from there she was shifted to Venlock Hospital, Mangalore

for further treatment. She succumbed to the injuries on

29.07.2011 at 04:25 p.m. On the basis of the same, a

complaint came to be lodged by son of the deceased and a case

- 3 -

was registered, the police have investigated the matter and

filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences

stated above.

3.

The prosecution examined eight witnesses as

PWs.1 to 8 and got marked thirteen documents as Exs.P1 to

P13. After recording the statement of accused under Section

313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short hereinafter

referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) and the accused gave the defence

evidence as DW.1 and also examined one Yogeesh as DW.2 and

got marked one document as Ex.D1. After hearing the

arguments, learned JMFC acquitted the accused. Being

aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has preferred this

appeal.

4.

Heard Sri. Vinayaka V.S., learned High Court

Government Pleader for appellant/State and Smt. Chaitanya

S.G., learned counsel for the respondent.

5.

Learned HCGP argued that the impugned judgment

and order of acquittal passed by the learned JMFC is contrary to

the law, facts and evidence on record. The reasoning given by

the learned JMFC is erroneous. The Trial Court has not

- 4 -

appreciated the evidence of PWs.2, 3, 5 & 6, in proper

perspective. They are eye witnesses to the incident. But the

learned Magistrate has not appreciated their evidence. The

learned JMFC has failed to consider the document produced by

the prosecution. Even the learned JMFC has not properly

appreciated the evidence of official witnesses PW.4 and PW.7.

The learned JMFC has not raised the proper inferences on the

basis of evidence on record. The nature of the accident itself

shows that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and

negligent manner and in the result, the victim fell down and

sustained injuries. Therefore, learned HCGP argued that the

learned Magistrate has wrongly came to the conclusion and

acquitted the accused. Learned counsel for the appellant in

support of his arguments relied on the decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of

Rajasthan reported in (2012) 9 SCC 284 and referred to

paragraph Nos.12, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22 & 32 and the same reads

as under:

12. Rash

and

negligent

driving

has

to

be

examined in the light of the facts and circumstances

of a given case. It is a fact incapable of being

construed or seen in isolation. It must be examined

in light of the attendant circumstances. A person

who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be held

- 5 -

responsible for the act as well as for the result. It

may not be always possible to determine with

reference to the speed of a vehicle whether a person

was driving rashly and negligently. Both these acts

presuppose an abnormal conduct. Even when one is

driving a vehicle at a slow speed but recklessly and

negligently, it would amount to “rash and negligent

driving” within the meaning of the language of

Section 279 IPC. That is why the legislature in its

wisdom has used the words “manner so rash or

negligent

as

to

e