1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM CRL.A. NO.1116/2007 BETWEEN: STATE BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHITTAKULA, KARWAR. … APPELLANT (BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR,ASPP) AND: DEEPAK MUKUND GAONKAR, AGE : 22 YEARS, OCC : NIL, R/O. HAKAWADA, HALAGEJOG, KARWAR. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. VARAPRASAD, ADV.) *** THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) & (3) CR.P.C. BY THE STATE P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/03/2006 IN C.C.NO.1826/2033 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE JMFC (II-COURT), KARWAR-ACQUITTING RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.279, 304(A) OF IPC. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING 2 JUDGMENT The State is in appeal against the acquittal of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 279, 304-A of IPC and Sec. 134(A) & (B) and 196 of the Indian Motor Vehicle Act. 2. Heard. Perused records in supplementation thereto. 3. The prosecution case is, the Complainant – Manjunath Mahesh Naik resident of Halaga who is student was standing near Halaga Mudewada Bus Stand on 3-5-2003 along with his uncle Babani Rama Naik. His father Mahesh Rama Naik was walking to the shop to purchase fish. When he was near the bus stand walking on left margin of the road the accused riding motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner was proceeding towards village. He hit against his father, consequent to which he fell suffering injuries and succumbed to it. 3 4. Based on the report of the Manjunath Mahesh Naik crime was registered in Cr. No. 46/2003 and after investigation final report was filed. The accused was summoned who pleaded not guilty necessitating trial in which the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses and produced in evidence 7 documents. 5. The learned trial Judge analysing the evidence found it establishes only occurrence of accident but does not establish the negligence in the driving of the petitioner, consequent to which he has granted acquittal. The State has questioned that order. 6. The learned Addl. SPP Mr. V.M.Banakar would contend that amongst all the witnesses two witnesses have spoken to as to how the incident occurred. According to him the father of the Complainant was walking on the left margin of the road but the accused was driving the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit him. It is alleged the accused was driving the vehicle in contravention of the IMV Act and negligence is culpable in nature. 4 7. As seen from the records except the Complainant there is no eye witness to the incident. PW2- Uday Harichandra Kambale and PW3- Kashinath Raghoba Tamse speak only about the occurrence of the accident. None have deposed he was driving in a rash and negligent manner. Except their evidence there is no other evidence. In this view the trial court could not have convicted him. As no other view than the one taken by the trial court is possible, the acquital is justified. 8. No grounds to interfere with the said finding. The Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE VK