JUDGMENT

This appeal arises out of the judgment passed by II Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C, Kadur in C.C.No.1097/2013, dated 18.06.2016, wherein the learned JMFC acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Sections 181 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act').

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

02.07.2013 at about 08:30 p.m., the deceased-Chandrappa was riding his TVS scooter bearing registration No.KA-16-U- 6257. While the said Chandrappa was proceeding near Kalledevarahally gate, the accused being the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-16-Q-9698 rode the same in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed, dashed to the TVS vehicle, which was driven by deceased Chandrappa. Due to the said impact, the Chandrappa fell down and sustained injuries on abdomen, forehead and on face. Immediately he was shifted to the Government hospital at Belaguru. At about 09:15 p.m. he succumbed to the injuries. One Veerupakashappa lodged the complaint in this regard. After investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences stated above.

3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and got marked fourteen documents as Exs.P1 to P14. Thereafter the statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') was recorded. After hearing the arguments, learned JMFC acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the State has filed this appeal.

4. Heard Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government for the appellant-State and Sri. T.N.Mohan Kumar, for Sri. A.N.Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Learned HCGP argued that the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to the evidence on record. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of eye witnesses i.e., PWs.2 and 4. Though PWs.2 and 4 have supported the case, the Trial Court has not appreciated their evidence in proper perspective. The accident is not disputed. The witnesses have stated that due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the respondent/accused, the accident occurred, the deceased fell down, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Trial Court ought to have convicted the accused. Therefore, the learned HCGP prayed to allow the appeal and convict the accused.

6. Against this, learned counsel for the respondent/accused argued that the Trial Court after considering the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and there is no evidence to show that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. As it was darkness, one could not see the vehicles coming from front side of the road. Therefore, the Trial Court after considering the evidence and discussing at paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of its judgment has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused and also failed to prove that the accused drive his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life. Hence, the judgment of acquittal needs no interference. With these arguments, learned counsel prayed to dismiss the appeal.

7. I have perused the impugned judgment of acquittal and other materials placed on record.

8. PW.1/Bogappa is the panch witness for Ex.P1/Spot mahazar. But his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution.

9. PW.2/Veerupaksha is the relative of the deceased-Chandrappa. He has stated that himself, one Nanjundaswamy along with deceased were proceeding to Hochihalli to attend some festival, at that time, this accident occurred. The accused came with a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the TVS scooter of the deceased. In the cross-exam