Appellant/State feeling aggrieved by the judgment of

acquittal passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karwar, in

C.C.No.567/2013 dated 27.04.2016, preferred this appeal.

Parties to the appeal are referred with their ranks as

assigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

The

factual

matrix

leading

to

the

case

of

prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that accused

No.3 obtained contract from the City Municipal Corporation for

maintaining swimming pool at Karwar. Accused Nos.1 and 2

are the trainers appointed by accused No.3 for giving coaching

to the public in swimming pool. On 10.04.2011 at 6.15 p.m.,

- 3 -

one Laxmidas Premanand Narvekar, son of complainant was

undergoing training with accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said

swimming pool. Accused Nos.1 and 2 did not provide any

safety equipments or made any safety arrangement, due to

which said Laxmidas Premanand Narvekar was drowned and

died in the said swimming pool. Due to negligence of accused

Nos.1 to 3 in maintaining swimming pool and by not taking

safety measures, son of complainant Laxmidas Premanand

Narvekar died due to drowning in the swimming pool.

4.

Accused Nos.1 to 3 were secured before the trial

Court and the trial Court after having satisfied prima facie

material has recorded substance of accusation for the offence

punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Accused have pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.

Prosecution in proof of the allegations made against

accused, relied on the evidence of PWs-1 to 16, documents

Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28 and got marked M.O.1. Ex.D.1 came to be

marked from the defence side. On closure of the prosecution

evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

came to be recorded. Accused have denied the incriminating

- 4 -

material evidence appearing against them and claimed that

false case is filed against them.

6.

The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on

record acquitted all the accused from the charges levelled

against them.

7.

Appellant/State questioning the correctness and

propriety of findings recorded by the trial Court in acquitting all

the accused contended that trial Court has not properly

appreciated the evidence of material witnesses PWs-1, 9 and

10. The place of incident and son of complainant, Laxmidas

Premanand Narvekar died due to drowning in the swimming

pool is not disputed by the defence. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have

offered no any explanation about death of Laxmidas Premanand

Narvekar due to drowning. The trial Court without assigning

any valid reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs-1, 9 and 10

has recorded improper reasonings in acquitting all the accused.

Therefore, prayed for allowing the appeal and to convict all the

accused for the offences alleged against them.

8.

Accused No.1, died during pendency of the appeal

and appeal against accused No.1 is abated by order dated

- 5 -

02.03.2017. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are represented through

their learned counsel.

9.

Heard the arguments of both sides.

10. The prosecution alleges that on 10.04.2011 at 6.15

p.m., while the son of complainant, Laxmidas Premanand

Narvekar was undergoing training of swimming with accused

Nos.1 and 2, died due to drowning on account of negligence of

accused Nos.1 and 2, since they did not provide safety

equipments or made safety arrangements and accused No.3

who has undertaken contract of maintaining the swimming pool

has failed to maintain the same. It is on account of negligence

of all the accused, son of complainant Laxmidas Premanand

Narvekar died due to drowning in the swimming pool.

11. The prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of

complainant/PW-1 and two independent witnesses, PWs-9 and

10 to prove the charges leveled against accused. The said

evidence is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of PW-7

who has removed the dead body from swimming pool and that

of PW-11, the doctor who has conducted autopsy and issued

P.M. report as per Ex.P.6, so also the evidence of Investig