STATE Vs. RAGHAVENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri. G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, learned HCGP for the State regarding admission of the case. Since, the matter would be disposed of, notice to respondent is dispensed with. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 29.01.2013. passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Kundapura in Criminal Case No. 1002/2009 acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that on 14.05.2009 at about 8.45 p.m., the accused being the driver of bus No. KA -20B -1048 drove the same from Kundapura and at Koteshwara Bus stand, while the passengers were alighting from the bus, he drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, before the conductor gave any signal. As a result of which, one passenger by name K. Narayana Shetty who was alighting from the bus through its front door fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on the back of his head and subsequently he was re -moved to the hospital, but the said passenger succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment at KMC Hospital, Manipal. Hence, it is alleged that the respondent being the driver of the vehicle was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and therefore he was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 279 and 304(A) IPC.

(3.) SRI . G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, learned HCGP submits that when the passenger was getting down from the front door of the vehicle, the driver ought to have been cautious that he moves the vehicle only after all the passengers get down from the bus or alight into the bus. Whereas., he has moved the bus negligently and rashly in starting the bus before even the passengers get down from the bus. Hence, he submits that the case of the prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He also submits that PW -2 Mohammad Shaffi is a eye -witness for the incident being a shop keeper which is in front of the place where the incident happened. PW -2 has completely supported the case of the prosecution. He also submits that the driver of the vehicle has not denied the driving of the bus which has been corroborated by the owner of the bus stating that on the date of the occurrence of the incident, accused was the driver of the bus. Hence, he submits that the order of acquittal deserves to be reversed.