STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. PRAKASH @ CHANNABASANA GOUDA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The State is in appeal questioning the acquittal of the accused who was alleged to having committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.', for brevity) and under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act', for brevity). The respondent accused was charge-sheeted in the following circumstances:

(3.) The learned Government Pleader would contend that the judgment is contrary to the facts of the case and the findings are without reference to the evidence on record. Thereby, there has been a miscarriage of justice. It is pointed out that PWs 1, 2 and 3 who are the injured witnesses and who were inside the vehicle, were fully aware of the manner in which the accident had occurred and it is their categorical assertion that the respondent accused was driving the vehicle at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and it is on account of this that the accident had occurred, for otherwise, it would have been avoided. Therefore, in the face of such evidence, the court below having held that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, is an erroneous finding ignoring the positive evidence that was available. The court below has found favour with the argument that it was in order to avoid a head-on collision that the respondent had swerved his vehicle and on account of the same, the vehicle had turned turtle, is a finding in favour of the accused, without any basis. The fact that the vehicle had turned turtle would indicate that even if it was to avoid a head-on collision that the respondent had swerved, if he had been travelling at a moderate speed, it would not have resulted in the overturning of the vehicle. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that having regard to the fact that a person has died and several others were injured as a result of the accident, the court below was not justified in acquitting the accused.