This appeal arises out of judgment of acquittal

passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge, JMFC Hosadurga in

C.C.No.135/2008 dated 06.11.2013, wherein the accused

was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections

279, 304A of IPC (hereafter referred to as 'the Act' for

short) and also under Section 181 and 187 of the Motor

Vehicles Act (hereafter referred to as 'MV Act' for short).

2.

The brief case of the prosecution is that on

22.12.2007, at about 3.00 p.m., accused being the rider of

Bajaj motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-16/L-7453

without having driving licence drove the said vehicle in the

rash and negligent manner and dashed against one Harish,

who was standing on the left side of the road. Due to

which, he fell down and sustained injuries. He was shifted

to Hosadurga Hospital and thereafter to Victoria Hospital,

Bengaluru. On 03.01.2008, the deceased succumbed to

the injuries. A case was registered against the accused by

the jurisdictional police and after investigation, the police

- 4 -

filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences

stated above.

3.

The prosecution got examined 16 witnesses as

PWs-1 to 16 and got marked 13 documents as Exs.P-1 to

P-13.

4.

After hearing the arguments, the learned JMFC

acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal.

5.

Heard.

6.

Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned HCGP argued that

the judgment of acquittal passed by the JMFC is illegal,

perverse and the evidence on record shows that the

accused drove the vehicle in an extreme left side of the

road and hit the deceased. The trial Court has failed to

appreciate the evidence of the eye witnesses PWs-1, 2, 3

and 6. Their evidences are corroborated with other

evidences. But the finding of the trial Court that the eye

witnesses are all interested witnesses, is contrary to law.

Learned HCGP submits that the trial Court ought to have

- 5 -

convicted the accused. The Investigating Officer and Motor

Vehicle Officer has also supported the case. The trial Court

over looked the circumstantial evidence and material,

which are consistent to prove the guilt of the accused.

Therefore, the judgment of acquittal is contrary to the

evidence on record. Learned HCGP prays to convict the

accused by setting aside the judgment of acquittal.

7.

Against this, learned counsel for the respondent

supported the judgment passed by the trial Court and

prays to dismiss the appeal.

8.

I have perused the evidence and records of the

case.

9.

Ex.P-1

is

the

complaint

lodged

by

one

Manjunath, who is examined as PW-1. He has stated that

on 22.07.2012, during the night time, he and his deceased

brother went to Ayyappa Temple in Hosadurga. After

performing the pooja at night, they were standing on the

left side of the road. At about 9.00 p.m, the accused

driving the said motor cycle came in a rash and negligent

- 6 -

manner and dashed against the deceased. Immediately,

the deceased was taken to the Hospital by the persons

who were present there. Even the motor cycle rider has

also sustained injuries and was taken for hospital. The

deceased was taken to Victoria Hospital for higher

treatment. He has stated that he did not know the motor

cycle number and lodged the complaint on the next day. It

is evident that Ex.P-1 was lodged on 23.12.2017 at 4.30

p.m.

10.

PW-1 in his complaint has stated that when

they were standing on the side of the road, the accused

came in a high speed and dashed against his brother. As a

result, his brother sustained injuries to the left side of the

head. He has stated about lodging of the complaint and

drawing up of mahazar. In the cross-examination, he has

admitted that the witnesses Puttappa and Manjunath are

his friends. He has also admitted that on that day, there

were number of persons present near the temple and it

was also very rush in front of the temple. He states that

- 7 -

the accused jumped the hump and dashed against his

brother. He also states that he was standing 8-9 ft away

behind the deceased.

11.

PW-2 Putt