STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. PUTTA SWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 02.06.2014 passed by the J.M.F.C. at Siruguppa in C.C.No.523/2012 thereby acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) read with Section 183 of the Motor Vehicles Act ( M.V.Act ).

(2.) The brief facts leading to fil ing of this appeal are that a complaint came to be filed on 18.11.2011 at 1.00 p.m. by one Soppinamath Shambul ingayya Swamy stating that he along with others visited Bengaluru on 16.11.2011 in a Tempo Trax bearing registration No.KA-36/9362. They started their return journey to Maski, on 17.11.2011. At about 1.30 a.m. they stopped their vehicle by the side of road, near a tea stall in Srinivas Camp. While they were having tea near tea stall, his uncle Gurubasaiah Swamy was having tea standing behind the Tempo Trax. At that time, a Lorry bearing registration No.KA-12/A-121 coming from Siruguppa and heading towards Ballari, dashed against front side of the Trax. Due to the impact, the Trax moved back and hit Gurubasaiah Swamy inf l icting severe injuries to his chest, right l imbs and waist. Immediately injured was taken to Government Hospital, Siruguppa. The accused by his rash and negl igent driving had committed the of fences punishable under Section 279, 304A ofi.P.C.

(3.) Based on the complaint, Crime No.95/2011 was registered at Siruguppa Pol ice Station. After investigation charge sheet was filed for offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 ofi.P.C. r/w Section 183 of the M.V. Act. Subsequently, the injured Gurubasaiah Swamy died during treatment at KIMS Hubball i. Consequently, the charge was revised to Section 304A ofi.P.C. As accused pleading not guilty, matter was set for trial. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses as PWs.1 to 15 and marked Exs.P1 to P13. Thereafter the entire incriminating material was explained to the accused which he denied. His statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. ) was recorded. The accused did not choose to lead defence evidence.