THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.684 OF 2004 DATED 1st DECEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN : Smt.D.Ramadevi .. Appellant and R.Srinivas & another ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.684 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: After obtaining necessary leave from this Court, the appellant-de facto complainant filed this Criminal Appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment, dated 22.12.2003, passed by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir, in Calendar Case No.115 of 2001. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that: On 20.12.2000 at 1230 hours the accused-R.1 drove the scooter bearing No.AP24 A 6428 in a rash and negligent manner and after reaching Sivani medical shop, the accused dashed his scooter to the scooter of the deceased Mohan Raju who sustained injuries and succumbed on 21.12.2000 while undergoing treatment at NIMS. The learned trial Judge charged the accused-R.1 for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC. Appellant-de facto complainant is examined as P.W.2 before the trial Court. The grievance of the appellant is that the learned Magistrate has not appraised the evidence in a proper perspective and acquitted the accused-R.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence of eyewitnesses P.Ws 1 and 2 was not properly appreciated by the learned trial Judge and he acquitted the accused on the basis of small discrepancies in the evidence adduced by the Prosecution. On perusal of the entire material on record and the impugned judgment, even though the learned trial Judge has given reasons for acquittal on the basis of the discrepancies like non-mentioning of the number of the scooter and also the place of occurrence, this Court found that none of the witnesses deposed before the trial Court regarding the rashness or negligence on the part of the accused, which resulted in an accident. In the absence of any evidence to show that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the offence under Section 304A IPC does not attract. Hence, the judgment of the learned trial Judge acquitting the accused need not be interfered with. Hence, the appeal fails. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 01.12.2010 sur