This appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal

dated 30.04.2013 in C.C.No.1141/2010 passed by the

learned Civil Judge & JMFC, Shikaripura (hereinafter

referred to as 'learned JMFC' for brevity) wherein the

respondent/accused was acquitted for the offences under

Section 279 of and 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for brevity) and also

for offences under Section 134 of the IMV Act.

- 3 -

2.

The brief case of the prosecution is that on

06.07.2010 at about 6.00 p.m., on Mathikote-Shikaripura

road, Shivanagowda / PW-2 was riding his Hero Honda

Splendor Plus motor bike bearing Registration No.KA-

27/O-8764 and proceeding from Hadrihalli village towards

Mathikote along with his wife and three year old daughter.

When he came near Baganakatte Cross, the accused being

the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01/AG-

4658 came from Shikaripura side in a rash and negligent

manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against

the Hero Honda which was coming in the opposite side.

As a result, the wife of the PW-2 namely Manjula, fell

down on the right side of the road and right side rear

wheel of the lorry ran on her and she succumbed to the

injuries on the spot. On a complaint being filed by PW-1 /

Basavanagowda, the Investigating Officer who registered

the case after conducting investigation, filed a charge-

sheet against the accused.

- 4 -

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution

examined in all eight witnesses as PW-1 to PW-8 and got

marked Exhibits P1 to P10. The respondent/accused

denied the evidence of prosecution in his statement

recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity). On

behalf of respondent/accused, he has neither examined

nor

produced

any

documents.

After

hearing

the

arguments, the Trial

Court acquitted the

accused.

Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has

preferred this appeal.

4.

Heard Smt. K.P.Yashodha, the learned HCGP for

appellant / State and Shri M.K. Girish, learned counsel for

the respondent/accused.

5.

Learned HCGP for appellant/State argued that

the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is

illegal and contrary to the law and evidence on record. The

death is not in dispute and the accident is also not in

- 5 -

dispute. The JMFC has not properly appreciated the

evidence on record, particularly the evidence of PW-2 /

Shivanagowda wherein he has stated that the driver drove

the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he also

sustained injuries. His evidence is corroborated by PW-3,

an eye-witness who was also coming in a bike behind his

motor cycle. PW-7 and PW-8 are police witnesses. The

entire evidence of the prosecution is that the accident has

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

accused, being the driver of the offending lorry. Hence,

the learned HCGP prays to set aside the acquittal

judgment of the JMFC and to convict the accused.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent / accused

argued that admittedly the accident took place as the

motor bike fell into a ditch and due to that, the wife of the

deceased fell down from the motor bike and sustained

injuries. There was no rash and negligent driving by the

accused. The learned counsel for the accused also argued

- 6 -

that PW-3 / eye-witness has not seen the incident which

was not head on collision at all. According to PW-3, the

lorry had dashed the motor cycle and PW-2 and his

daughter fell to the left side and the wife of PW-2 fell to

the right side. But PW-2 and his daughter had not

sustained any injuries. The learned counsel also argued

that the other witnesses have not supported the

prosecution case. As it was heavily raining and as

observed by the learned Trial Judge, the road was full of

water and in order to avoid a pit, the rider of the vehicle /

PW-2 took the motor cycle away from the pit as a result of

which his wife fell on the right side and himself and