To sustain a conviction for rash and negligent driving, the prosecution must prove negligence beyond reasonable doubt; failure of a vehicle entering a National Highway to follow the 'stop, watch, and proceed' principle can negate the driver's liability.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1) & (3) OF THE CODE OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 28.09.2018 PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT, ANKOLA IN C.C.NO.178/2015 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 28.09.2018 PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT, ANKOLA IN C.C.NO.178/2015 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 338 & 304(A) OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

Digitally signed b Ry U M DRA AL YL YIK AARJUN

KALMATH

Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

This criminal appeal is filed by the State under Sections 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C., calling in question the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.09.2018 passed by the JMFC Court, Ankola, in C.C. No.178/2015, and seeking to convict the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of the IPC.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.09.2014 at about 10:45 a.m., the accused, being the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-31/F-1247, while driving from Ankola towards Karwar on NH-66 near Baleguli–Alageri Cross in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-30/Q-3097, thereby causing an accident. Due to the said accident, the deceased, who was riding the motorcycle, fell down and succumbed to the injuries, and PW-5, the pillion rider, sustained grievous injuries.

CW-1 lodged the first information statement before the police on 12.09.2014, and a case was registered in P.S.Crime No.178/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, and 304(A) of IPC. After conducting the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the accused for the said offences. It is alleged that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

After submission of the final report, cognizance of the said offences was taken, and the accused was enlarged on bail.

Copies of the prosecution papers were supplied to the accused in compliance with Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

The accusation was framed, and the plea of the accused was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty but claimed to be tried. Hence, the Magistrate Court issued summons to the witnesses.

In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-10 and got marked 15 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-15. PW-1 is the spot panch witness; PW-2 is the seizure panch witness; PW-3 is the son of the victim; PW-4 is the conductor; PW-5 is the pillion rider of the motorcycle; PW-6 is an eyewitness; PW-7 is the police officer who registered the FIR and conducted the first part of the investigation; PW-8 is the Motor Vehicles Inspector; PW-9 is the inquest panch witness; and PW-10 is the Investigating Officer who conducted the second part of the investigation and filed the charge sheet. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused stated that he had no defence evidence.

The statement of the accused as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence but did not choose to lead any evidence on his behalf. After hearing the arguments of the learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the accused, and upon perusal of the entire materials placed on record, the Magistrate Court acquitted the accused.

Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal by raising various grounds.

The learned HCGP for the State submitted that PW-5, who is the pillion rider of the motorcycle, has deposed that the accused drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. During the course of his cross-examination, nothing was elicited to disbelieve his evi