. ~ . '_ Aged' 532
IN THE HIGH COURT 014* KARNATAKA AT BAN(}£§;Oi?_E--J: f
DATED THIS THE 32% DAY OF s13>1é1'EM:3E12.?;o:ie % _ _: "
BEFORE A % Q
THE HON'BLE MR.Jt::':;:§1C1§a;V.P1N1f¢ %
CRMINAL A1>:éEAL OF
Between: V A A V
State ofI{an17atakaV ; «V
By Mysore SO1Ifi'3«1:?.'S. 3; .j; Appellant
(By Sri }19izi{iII;'5fSjvIE5}3}. V
And:
R.Manjt1 .
S/o late
_ dI'i'ver"' ~ . «_
* Baf1dipa1ya'Gmma
Mysctfé - . . . . Respondent
j L (By an :é;1>.raegdc, Advocate)
‘I’..I1is:c1’i11a.i1)aIappeal is filed under Smtion 378(1) 85
¢ 5(3) Cr-,P.C. by the State RP. for the State praying that this
” _ Hon–‘bie Curt may be pleased to grant leave to 133:: an
agizgpeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dt.
V» T ..?,5.{)1.20€)5 passed by the II (3.3. (JLDIL) an JMFC, Mysare
and etc.
This appeal coming on far hearing this day, the
court delivered 1:113 follcwing:
‘Q
/2’/.
further alleged that at the said place, date
driving the vehicle in a rash and ” ‘V V
caused simple injuries to PW-1 lplillieiiié
with the deceased, tl1erel’3l;s_(“—lie have
committed an offence 337
IPC. It is also further involved in the
accident and eeeéieildent has not
given first irzformed the
police to have committed
an olferlee_ Section 18′? of the Motor
Vehielee _Act;.V In__O1’€1e1*l’tovpreve the case, the prosecution
in alleight wimesses and got: marked
defence of the respondent was one of
_ After hearing the preseeution and the
l W H u .Vl’.§iiefe;1ee’;”‘ll1e learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit
lt’iie”1*e;spondent of all the charges levelled against him.
ll “Fae State has filed this appeal against the order of
l 3 acquittal.
2. PW-1 is Sarvanamma. She
about 2 years back prior to
she had gone to a marriage to ~’
husband in the hero honda f\:t’v5abt)jutVVV9.20
a.m. when they were her
husband was %:§as riding as a
pinion Mysore side in a.
rash and against the
motoxegftclev. 1 husband fell down.
She sustaijied right shouider azad also
V her ribe. htisbend has died at the spot. She
the respondent as the driver who drove
__ date of accident. In the crc:»ss..
V . exafixinatietfshe has stated that at the time of accident,
H K freitl the two vehicles involvm in the accident no
.’dtt1erdA’vehieIes were on the read. She has also stated
T ” “that no persons were there on the road, but in the
U neighbouring fields people were werking. PW-2 is a
cookie working near the scene of occurrence. He has
W
/2
stated that on the date of accident
motorcycle going on the road atxdthe 2 K ‘V
high speed and dashed agam st ._
he reached the spot, the ” t’ ‘
PW-3 is a siglatory ton’ is
another eyewitness hearing the
sound when the he saw the
deceased and had died and
itljufies. PW-5 is yet
axlofliet’ erorking in the garden and
immediately’ sound, he came to the scene
‘-of “” “Saw the deceased fallen on the
Ateiiflowever, he has been treated hostile by
regarding his signatures to Ex.P2 and
-P3. PKVQ6 is the head constable who has visited the
“ii of occurrence and recorded the statement of the
th complainant and thereafter registered the case and sent
V ‘4 the FIR to the Court. PWJ7 was the Inspector of Police
during the relevant time. He has conducted the
investigation in this case and arrested t13e’V_t1Ees;,¥entiezit–«t t
and filed the ehaI’ge-sheet. Pwgs
recorded the statement of e,
the spot mahazar and scene
of occurrence as per ‘zrejspectifiely. It is
from the evidence of. the learned
Magistrate State has
fled
3″ ‘ :V$1’i.i°.t\?I.I§Te.waz, learned Add}. spp and Sri
.’ V. ttae counsel appearing for the
Add}. spp submits that the
evicienee’ PWs~1 and 5 is corroborative with each
4”-.. ‘ether both of them have identified the accused and
witnessed the arrive} of the 10113; before the
-eaiicident. Both these witnesses have teetified to the fact
V that the lofty was driven in high speed and in a
negligent manner and has dashed against the vehicle
driven by the deceased. The version of PW-5 is also
material on record, I am of the opinion
reasoning Qven by that: learned Magisuate is
is not against the evidence onMA’Vreco:’_ri;”‘1″2£51*. is ‘.it
capricious or improper. Under these if
an appeal against acquittal, I?1c’r–.{:ot any’ %
reascns to upset the w<_~f:Il c9nsi.€f¢:*¢d~.._prd§ér' 'c.§f_a;:r:1uittal
passed by the trial deserves to
be dismissed and_Aaccordifigl3};: dismissed.
Sd/-4
Tfidge