STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. T K MAHENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-State has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Civil Judge & JMFC, Gundlupet, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), in C.C.No.109/2008, dated 9.8.2010, acquitting the present respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'IPC'), and Section 134 (a) (b) read with Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'M.V.Act'), and Section 3 Clause (1) read with Section 192, Section 156 read with Section 177 of M.V.Act.

(2.) The summary of the case of the prosecution is that on 14.10.2007, at about 3.30 p.m., at Hulganamuradi Venkataramanaswamy Hill, near the last curve, the accused being the driver of the Autorickshaw bearing registration No.CRM 5362, drove the said vehicle towards Terakanambi in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others, due to which, the said vehicle toppled and as a result of which, one Sri Ananthamurthy, a passenger in the said vehicle, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to it at Apollo Hospital, Mysuru, and three more passengers traveling in the same autorickshaw (CW-9, CW-10 and CW-11) sustained simple and grievous injuries.

(3.) Based upon the charge sheet filed by the complainant-police, the trial Court framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of IPC, Section 134(a)(b) read with Section 184 of M.V.Act and Section 192A, 196 read with Section 187 of M.V.Act. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the prosecution in order to prove the guilt against the accused, examined eight witnesses from PW-1 to PW-8 and through them, got marked the documents from Exs.P-1 to P-10(a). Neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents were got marked from the accused side. The trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 9.8.2010, acquitted the accused of the alleged offences. It is against the said judgment, the respondent-State has preferred this appeal.