STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. BALESAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is the prosecution and the challenge is to the order dated 23rd July 2007 passed by the District Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2007. By the said order, the Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 20th December 2006 passed by the JMFC, Hungund in CC No.230 of 2001. The case registered against the accused is for an offence punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 134 read with Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence referred to above. That accused challenged the said order in appeal and the Sessions Judge allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, the present appeal.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the prosecution submitted that the Sessions Judge has committed an error by setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court despite the fact that the prosecution has proved its case by examining the eye-witnesses to the incident and also the IOs with regard to the investigation. Witnesses have been examined as PWs.1 to 13 and all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution marked documents as per Exhibits P1 to P8 and the materials have been listed as MOs.1 to 5. Respondent-accused has never examined any person on his behalf and no documents have been marked or, at the least, he has never stated anything for his defense while making 313 statement.

(3.) ON behalf of the accused-respondent herein, the learned counsel supporting the judgment of the Sessions Judge, submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is contradictory and the evidence of eye-witness do not corroborate each other and identification of the accused has not been done. As per the FIR, the incident has taken place at 8.00 p.m. in the night and it is presumable that the vehicles, during night time, will run without light in the driver cabin and as PW1 himself deposes that after the accident the vehicle fled away from the scene of offence, the possibility of identification of the driver that too at 8.00O clock in the night is improbable and beyond all reasonable expectation. Eye-witnesses to the accident have deposed that the injured died on the spot itself. It is further submitted that after the incident, that too when the father of the complainant has died on spot, nobody will give much attention to note down the number of the offending vehicle or the following of the offending vehicle in the next bus is also unbelievable.