The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere eyewitness accounts insufficient without corroborative evidence.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The State of Karnataka represented by Sakkarayapatna police through State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 30.11.2019 passed in C.C.No.1069/2014 by the II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Kadur.

2. The brief and relevant facts leading upto this appeal are as under:

That the accused/respondent was charge sheeted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kaduru for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act alleging, that on 10.03.2014 at 9.15 p.m., the accused herein, being the rider of the motorbike bearing registration No.KA-18-V-

2471 was driving the motorbike from chikkamangaluru side in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and when he came near Ekkamma Devarakatte, he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to another motorbike coming from the opposite direction bearing registration No. KA-18-V-1543 driven by one, Devendrappa, being the father-in-law of PW1 - complainant. In the said accident, the said Devendrappa sustained injuries on his person and both the vehicles were damaged. Immediately, the complainant and his friend, who were moving on the road at that time shifted the injured Devendrappa to District Mallegowda Hospital and it is noticed that, the doctor declared him as dead. With these allegations, a complaint came to be filed, which was registered by the police and a criminal law was set in motion.

3. On completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Accused appeared before the trial Court and was enlarged on bail. The substance of acquisition were framed read over and explained to the accused persons for which, he pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

4. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, in all prosecution examined 4 witnesses from PW1 to PW4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 and closed the prosecution evidence. Thereafter, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C so as to enable him to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. He denied his complicity in the crime and did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. To rebut the evidence lead by the prosecution, accused himself entered the witness box as DW1 and none of the documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

5. The learned trial Magistrate, on hearing the arguments and evaluation of the evidence, found the accused not guilty for the offences under Section 279 and 304 (A) of IPC, but however, found guilty of the accused for the offences under Section s 181 , and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 and sentenced him as under:

"zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÀiÁ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 225 (1)gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÉÆÃð£ÀÄäR£ÁV, DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DvÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÝ ºÉÆj¹zÀ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.279, 304(J)gÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ½UÁV ¤gÀ¥ÀgÁ¢ü JAzÀÄ ¤tð¬Ä¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÀiÁ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 225 (2gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÉÆÃð£ÀÄäR£ÁV, DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DvÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÝ ºÉÆj¹zÀ ªÉÆÃlgï ªÁºÀ£À PÁ¬ÄzÉ PÀ®A 181 ºÁUÀÆ 196 gÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ½UÁV C¥ÀgÁ¢ü JAzÀÄ ¤tð¬Ä¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ ªÉÆÃlgï ªÁºÀ£À PÁ¬ÄzÉ 1988 gÀ PÀ®A.181 gÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀPÁÌV C¥ÀgÁ¢üUÉ gÀÆ.500-00 zÀAqÀªÀ£ÀÄß «¢ü¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. zÀAqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä «¥sÀ®£ÁzÀ°è DgÉÆæUÉ 05 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀeÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¢ü¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ ªÉÆÃlgï ªÁºÀ£À PÁ¬ÄzÉ PÀ®A.196 gÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀPÁÌV C¥ÀgÁ¢üUÉ gÀÆ.1,000-00 zÀAqÀªÀ£ÀÄß «¢ü¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. zÀAqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä «¥sÀ®£ÁzÀ°è DgÉÆæUÉ 10 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀeÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¢ü¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀeÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ KPÀPÁ®zÀ°è C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À eÁ«Ä£ÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ zÀA.¥Àæ.¸ÀA. PÀ®A

437(J)gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è §gÉzÀÄPÉÆlÖAvÀºÀ eÁ«Ä£ÀÄ ªÀÄÄZÀѽP