Though this matter is listed at the stage of admission,

with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the

parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

2.

This appeal arises out of the judgment of

acquittal passed in C.C.No.2054/2010 dated 23.09.2013 by

JMFC (III Court), Mangalore, D.K., wherein the learned JMFC

acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 279 of Indian Penal Code (for short hereinafter

referred to as 'IPC') and CMV Rule 115 read with 190(2) of

Motor Vehicles Act (for short hereinafter referred to as 'M.V.

Act').

3.

In brief the case of the prosecution is that on

23.02.2010 in the morning at about 8:45 a.m. the accused

being the driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA-19-B-

5226

was

proceeding

near

Padavu

Junction

towards

Kuntikan, at that time, he drove the same in a rash and

negligent manner, so as to endanger the human life and

- 3 -

when he reached near K.P.T junction, where the road

proceeding from Circuit Junction towards Bondel, dashed to

the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-19-K-9546

belongs to PW.2/Kiran which was parked by the side of the

road, thereafter the bus went ahead and dashed to the petty

shop of the complainant, as a result, the motorcycle got

damaged and there was also damage to the petty shop.

Hence, the complainant lodged the complaint with Traffic

East Police Station. On the basis of the said complaint,

PW.7/Jyothi, Women Head Constable registered the case in

Crime No.25/2010 for the offences stated above.

4.

In order to prove the case, the prosecution

examined eight witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and got marked

eleven documents as Exs.P1 to P11. The portion of

statement of PW.3 is marked as Exs.D1 and D2. After

hearing the arguments, learned JMFC acquitted the accused.

Being aggrieved by the same, the State has filed this appeal.

5.

Heard Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court

Government Pleader for appellant/State and Sri. Jeevan K.,

learned counsel for respondent.

- 4 -

6.

Learned

HCGP

argued

that

the

impugned

judgment of acquittal is opposed to law and facts on record.

The same is illegal. PWs.1 to 3 are the eye witnesses to the

incident. In their evidence they have specifically stated

about the fact that the accident took place only on account

of rash and negligent driving of the respondent/accused.

Even they have identified the respondent also. Learned

HCGP argued that the motor vehicle inspector has issued a

certificate to the effect that the accident is not occurred due

to any mechanical defect in the offending bus. Learned HCGP

argued that the learned JMFC has failed to appreciate the

evidence

adduced

by

the

prosecution

in

a

proper

perspective. The learned JMFC wrongly come to the

conclusion that none of the witnesses have identified the

accused. Learned HCGP argued that respondent/accused at

the first instance dashed to the motorcycle of PW.2.

Thereafter, the bus dashed against petty shop of PW.1

situated about ten feet away from the public road. Therefore,

it is clear that the respondent was driving the vehicle in a

rash and negligent manner. Learned HCGP argued that the

learned JMFC without discussing the evidence adduced by

- 5 -

the prosecution in detail, has wrongly acquitted the accused.

Learned JMFC has failed to draw proper inference from the

evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution. With these

arguments, learned HCGP prayed to set aside the judgment

of acquittal and convict the accused.

7.

Against

this

learned

counsel

for

the

respondent/accused argued that the prosecution has failed

to prove the charge leveled against the accused. There is no

evidence to show that the vehicle is not having emission test

certificate. The prosecution witnesses have not identified the

accused in police station. No test identification parade is

conducted. Learned counsel argued that the learned JMFC

after properly appreciating the evidence of prosecution

witnesses, has rightly acquitted the accused. Therefore,

learned counsel argued tha