STATE OF GOA Vs. PRAKASH GONNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and order dated 15/6/2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ponda, thereby acquitting the respondent/accused from the offences punishable under sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and section 134 (a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) The accident has taken place on 29/3/2008 at 2.40 hours when the accused drove canter truck bearing no.Ka-25-2057 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed a motorcycle causing grievous injury to the motorcyclist and simple injury to ta pillion rider. The accident has taken place near bypass of Panaji-Ponda road near Magueshi temple junction. A criminal case was registered against the accused. He pleaded not guilty before the learned Magistrate and the trial proceeded. Prosecution in all examined 9 witnesses to prove its case. The learned JMFC formulated the point for determination in respect of driving in rash and negligent manner thereby endangering human lives and also caused grievous and simple injury. However, all these points were hereby negated by the learned Judge. The learned Judge in fact in paragraph 20 of its judgment has stated that he did not find it necessary to go into the aspect of the manner in which the accident occurred as the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of the accused which is the essential ingredient of section 279 of I.P.C. The learned Judge thus did not decide the point of rashness and negligent driving of the respondent/accused but held that the fact that the accused was the one who was the driving the vehicle at the relevant time is not proved by the prosecution and hence he acquitted the accused from all the charges. Hence this appeal is filed by the State.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that the prosecution has tendered evidence on the point of fixing identity of the accused as the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. Learned counsel read over the evidence of PW.7, Mr. Pankaj Kumar. who was looking after the business of his brother and who was the owner of the said canter truck. He has deposed that at the relevant time the respondent/ accused was driving the vehicle . Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that his evidence if it is read along with the answers given by the accused while answering the questions put to him under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. then, the fact of identity of the accused as a driver at the relevant time cannot be negated. He submits that the finding given by the Judge on the point of either proving identity of the accused as the driver of the truck is to be set aside and the case may be remanded for determining the other relevant issues.