This appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal

passed by learned JMFC (II Court), Mangalore, in CC

No.1819/2012,

dated

02.12.2013,

whereby

the

respondent/accused was acquitted for offences punishable

under section 279, 338 & 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (for

short hereinafter referred to as IPC) and R/W 134(a)(b) and

Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act (for short

hereinafter referred to as IMV).

2.

Brief case of the prosecution is that, on

25.04.2012, at about 7.00 p.m., the respondent/accused

being driver of the Ambassador car bearing No.KA-30-6906

was driving the same from Mangalore to Udupi side on NH-

66 in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life.

When he came in front of Mayya Electronics in Surathkal

junction in Idya village of Mangalore, he dashed against Smt.

Chandravathi, who was standing along with the husband on

- 3 -

the mud road. As a result, she sustained injuries and then

on 30.04.2012, she succumbed to the injuries at A.J.

Hospital. The complaint came to be filed by the husband of

deceased on 26.04.2012 at 12.00 noon. The Investigating

Officer after investigating the matter filed charge sheet

against the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 279, 304(A), 338 IPC and also Section 134(a) & (b)

read with 187 of IMV Act.

3.

The prosecution in order to prove its case

examined eight witnesses as PWs.1 to 8, got marked 13

documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.13. After hearing the

arguments, learned JMFC acquitted the accused. Hence, this

appeal.

4.

Heard learned High Court Government Pleader

for the State and Sri Prithviraj Shastry G, learned counsel for

the accused.

5.

Learned High Court Government Pleader argued

that the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to the

facts and evidence on record. The Trial Court failed to

- 4 -

appreciate the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and there is

corroboration of evidence and the prosecution evidence is

consistent to charge to prove the rash and negligent driving

by the accused. The Trial Court's reasoning in discarding the

evidence of five witnesses is not justifiable. The Trial Court

overlooked the materials and circumstances which are

consistent to prove the guilt of the accused. The minor

discrepancies are highlighted as major discrepancies. The

accused has not disputed the accident. The accused

identification is not disputed. Therefore, learned High Court

Government Pleader prayed to allow the appeal and set

aside the judgment of acquittal.

6.

Against this, learned counsel for the respondent

argued that there are discrepancies in the evidence of

prosecution witnesses and the prosecution has not been able

to prove the offences alleged against the accused. He stated

that the judgment of Trial Court needs no interference as

accused is rightly acquitted and prays to dismiss the appeal.

7.

I have perused the judgment of acquittal and the

evidence on record.

- 5 -

8.

Ex.P.1-complaint came to be lodged on the next

day of the incident. Though according to the prosecution,

the incident occurred on 25.04.2012 at 7.00 p.m., the

complaint was lodged on 26.04.2012 at 12.00 noon. The

injured died on 30.04.2012.

9.

PW.1-Balakrishna Bekal is the complainant and

husband of deceased. He has stated that when his wife was

moving on a katcha road, the vehicle came from hind side

and dashed to his wife, then his wife was taken to hospital

and she died. He has also admitted that CW.2 is his friend

and CW.3 is his son's friend. It is stated that he was not

present. He came to the hospital only at night. He has also

admitted that the place of accident is a National Highway

and a busy place. He has stated in the cross-examination

that, he has not given any statement or complaint that when

himself and his wife were on the side of the road this

accident occurred. On the other hand, he states that his

wife was walking in front of him and there was 8 to 9 feet

distance and the vehicle came from hind side and dashed to

her. This creates a doubt