JUDGMENT

This appeal arises out of judgment of acquittal passed in C.C.No.1366/2008 dated 25.10.2014 by Civil Judge and JMFC, Sullia, D.K. wherein the learned JMFC acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and also under Section 185(B) of Motor Vehicles Act (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V. Act’) and convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) r/w 181 of M.V. Act.

2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on

31.05.2008 one Vikas Shoukeen and his friend Rohit were on their way to have the dinner at Hotel Silver Spoon at about 09:00 p.m., while they were walking in front of Sidhi motors, when he was on the left side and Rohit Kumar was walking just beside him, at that time, the accused being the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-21-H-3412 rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and hit to the Rohitkumar from the backside who sustained grievous injuries and immediately taken to the hospital, thereafter he succumbed to the injuries. In this regard, a complaint came to be lodged. The investigating officer after investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences stated above.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses as PWs.1 to 10 and got marked eight documents as Exs.P1 to P8. After hearing the arguments, learned JMFC acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred this appeal.

4. Heard Sri. H.S.Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for appellant/State and Sri. P.B.Umesh, for Sri.R.B.Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent/accused.

5. Learned HCGP argued that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is illegal, contrary to law and evidence, hence the same is liable to be set aside. The Trial Court erred in not considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who are the eye witnesses, who have deposed that the accused rode his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against the deceased. The Trial Court has failed to consider Ex.P3/sketch and Ex.P2-spot mahazar, which discloses that the accident occurred due to the negligence and fault of the accused and the Trial Court ought to have invoked the principle of res-ipsa-loquitor against the accused and convicted the accused. The Trial Court has erred in coming to the conclusion and acquitted the accused, even though there are eye witnesses i.e., PWs.1 and 2 who have clearly deposed about the incident that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. The Trial Court has failed to consider the material documents - Exs.P2 to P4 and has wrongly acquitted the accused. Therefore, the judgment passed by the Trial Court is illegal, perverse and hence, prays to set aside the judgment of acquittal. With these arguments, learned counsel prayed to allow the appeal and convict the accused.

6. Against this, learned counsel for the respondent - Sri.P.B.Umesh, argued that the Trial Court has rightly considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses in a proper perspective. The deceased along with his friends was walking on the road and without noticing the vehicle had tried to cross the road and the accused was going on the left side of the road only. There is no evidence to show that the accused was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. PWs.1 and 2 are close friends of the deceased. On the other hand, the accused also sustained injuries and he was also admitted to the hospital at 08:30 p.m. itself. The FIR shows that the accident occurred at 09:20 p.m. The accused has stated that due to his bike got skid, he fell down and sustained injuries. Therefore, the learned JMFC has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. There is no material to show that the accused