The principles surrounding the appellate review of acquittal judgments emphasize double presumption of innocence, necessitating strong evidence for interference.

JUDGMENT

This appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur in C.C.No.1192/2013 dated 20.06.2017 wherein the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 304A of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 06.09.2013 at 2.00 a.m. at National Highway 206, one Keshavamurthy @ Keshava was riding Hero Honda Passion Motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-18/V- 4355 along with one Siddappa as a pillion rider. They were traveling from Kadur to Bantaganahalli. It is further contended that when they came near Hulukinakallu cross in order to go towards Bantaganahalli the motorcyclist slowed down the motorcycle. At that time a bus bearing registration no. KA-47/4612 driven by this accused came in a rash and negligent manner and without observing the indicator dashed to the motorcyclist. Due to that impact both the rider and pillion rider sustained injuries and they succumbed to the injuries on spot. In this regard one Keshavamurthy lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police. After investigation, the Jurisdictional Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences stated above.

3. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined seven witnesses as PWs-1 to 7 and got marked 17 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.17. Thereafterwards, the statement of accused as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution. After hearing both sides the trial Court acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned HCGP argued that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is erroneous, illegal and perverse. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW-4, who is complainant and eye witness to the incident. The PWs-1 to 3 who are mahazar witnesses and also eye witnesses to the prosecution case. They have partly supported the prosecution case. PWs-5 and 7 are the Investigating Officers who corroborate the evidence of PW-4.

5. The documentary evidence Exs.P.1 to P.8 i.e., postmortem report, IMV etc., all supports the prosecution case. The trial Court without appreciating the evidence in proper perspective and when there is corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, regarding charge leveled against the accused, has wrongly acquitted the accused, which is illegal. Therefore, learned HCGP prayed to set aside the order of acquittal and convicting the accused in accordance with law.

6. I have perused the appeal memo and trial Court records. Perused both oral and documentary evidence.

7. The judgment of the Trial Court shows that the only witness who is stated to have witnessed the incident, PW-4 evidence cannot be believed and based on the sketch marked vide Ex.P.17 and in view of the contradictions appearing in the oral evidence of witnesses has acquitted the accused.

8. I have also perused the oral evidence and re- appreciated the same.

9. PW.1/Venkatesh is a witness to the scene of offence panchanama. But he has not supported the prosecution case.

10. PW.2/Suresha is another panch witness. His evidence indicates about the place of offence and taking his signature to panchanama.

11. PW.3/Sanjay is the cleaner of the offending bus which caused the accident. He has also not supported the prosecution.

12. The prosecution has treated all these witness as hostile witnesses and cross-examined them. But nothing helpful to the prosecution is elicited from their evidence.

13. PW.4/Keshwamurthy has stated that he was proceeding in his car from Kadur to Bantaganahalli on 06.09.2013 at about 02:00 a.