This appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal dated

30.03.2013 passed by learned III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC,

Bhadravathi in C.C.No.3416/2010 for the offences punishable

under sections 279 and 304 IPC.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on

13.06.2020, PW-1 Santhosh Kumar and his brother Arun

Kumar were in their house and their father Chinndorai who was

working as an watchman in IB, Irrigation Department had

been to duty. It is further stated that somebody had informed

PW-1 that their father has sustained fracture to the arm.

Hence, PW-1 and his brother Arun Kumar were proceeding on

the motor bike bearing registration No.KA-14-V-8751. PW-1

was riding the bike and Arun Kumar was the pillion rider. At

about 12.30 noon, when they were proceeding in the cross

road at saddle No.1 near the guard room, a jeep bearing

registration No.CKG-893 came from opposite direction driven

by the accused in a high speed negligently and dashed to the

motor cycle. PW-1 jumped on the left side. Arun Kumar fell

down on the right side alongwith bike and the jeep ran over on

Arun Kumar. PW-1 took his brother Arun Kumar to the hospital,

- 3 -

but he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, a complaint came to

be lodged by PW-1.

3. The prosecution in all examined 10 witnesses as PW-01

to PW-10 and got marked 10 documents as Exs-P1 to P10 and

closed their evidence. The accused has denied the prosecution

evidence against him in his 313 Cr.P.C statement and not led

any defence evidence. After hearing the arguments, the learned

JMFC acquitted the accused. Same is challenged in this appeal

by the State.

4. Heard learned HCGP Smt. K.P. Yashoda for the

appellant-State and Sri. Harish Shiralakoppa, representing

Sri. B.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

5. Learned HCGP argued that the impugned judgment of

acquittal passed by the trial court is not sustainable in the eye

of law. The trial court has not properly appreciated the

evidence on record. PW-1 who is the complainant and

eyewitness to the incident has given evidence. PW-2 and other

witnesses are panchas and other circumstantial evidence.

Accused has failed to give any satisfactory explanation as to

why he suddenly came on the left side of the road. The

- 4 -

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

accused/respondent. The trial court has failed to see the Motor

Vehicle Inspector report who has given a report that the jeep

had no mechanical defect. The accused has not taken any

defence. Therefore, absolutely there is no evidence to

disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Hence,

prayed to allow the appeal and convict the accused.

6. Against this, learned counsel for the respondent

argued that the evidence of PW-1 before the Court does not

show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving by the driver of the jeep as PW-1 himself has admitted

that the jeep of the accused was coming towards down and

after seeing the jeep, PW-1 might have jumped from the motor

bike to the left side by leaving deceased Arun Kumar on the

bike, therefore, the bike lost control and fell on the right side

and the jeep ran over the deceased. It is only because of

negligence on the part of PW-1, the accident occurred. The

evidence of PW-1 that the jeep dragged the bike and deceased

Arun Kumar for nearly 30ft cannot be believed in the absence

of any marking at the place of accident. As evident from the

panchanama, no sketch is produced as to where the accident

- 5 -

occurred. It appears, the accident occurred at a curve and

while the jeep driver was coming, suddenly, PW-1 came in a

high speed. In view of PW-1 receiving the message that their

father has sustained fracture in the IB, may be under tension,

they came in a high speed and dashed to the jeep and the

accident occurred. Therefore, learned counsel argued that the

trial court considering the evidence has rightly held that the

prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of t