JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment and order dated 04.08.2016 passed in Crl. Case No.1998/2014 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, thereby acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.08.2014, at about 2.45 p.m., near Kothalkata Bus Stop, Uliyaragoli Village, Udupi Taluk, the accused being the rider of a bike bearing registration No.KA19EH9695, rode the same in a rash and negligent manner from Mangalore side towards Udupi side and hit against one Hemalatha Shetty who was standing by the side of the road, due to which, she sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to Adarsha Hospital, Udupi and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. 3. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.1 to 14. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. 4. The Trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the State. 5. It is the contention of the learned HCGP that PWs1 and 2 are the eye witnesses to the incident, who were along with the deceased at the time of accident. They have deposed that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent riding by the accused. He submits that both of them have identified the accused and even PW3 who is a witness to the spot Mahazar – Ex.P2 has supported the case of prosecution and therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is not sustainable in law. He further contends that the accused has failed to offer any explanation in respect of the accident while he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, a presumption arises against the accused for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. He further submits that the Trial Court was not justified in acquitting the accused pointing out minor discrepancies and infirmities in the case. Accordingly, he prays to set aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and to convict the accused. 6. He further submits that the Trial Court was not justified in acquitting the accused pointing out minor discrepancies and infirmities in the case. Accordingly, he prays to set aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and to convict the accused. 6. Though the respondent has been served, he is not represented. 7. I have perused the lower court records as well as the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 8. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.08.2014, at about 2.45 p.m., near Kothalkata Bus Stop, Uliyaragoli Village, Udupi Taluk, the accused while riding his bike in a rash and negligent manner from Mangalore side towards Udupi side, hit his motor cycle against one Hemalatha Shetty who was standing by the side of the road, on account of which, she sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the Hospital. 9. The first information with regard to the accident in question came to be lodged by PW1, as per Ex.P1. He is the younger brother of the deceased. It is stated therein that the deceased, himself and his brother-in-law i.e., PW3 were waiting for the bus at Kothalkata Bus Stop on the Western side of the Tar road. At that time, the rider of the motor cycle by riding the said motor cycle came in a zigzag and rash and negligent manner from Mangalore side and came towards the left side of the road and dashed against his sister who was standing beside him, on account of which, his sister fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The rider of the motor cycle as well as the motor cycle fell on the road. His sister as well as the rider of the motor cycle were shifted to the hospital. However, his sister was declared ‘brought dead’. The rider of the motor cycle was admitted to the hospital. 10. The complainant has been examined as PW1. He has stated that he along with his sister Hemalatha and CW2(PW2) and CW3 were standing near the road divider on the left side to cross the road. At that time, the offending motor cycle came from Mangalore side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his sister Hemalatha Shetty, on account of which, she sustained injuries. He has stated that he along with his sister Hemalatha and CW2(PW2) and CW3 were standing near the road divider on the left side to cross the road. At that time, the offending motor cycle came from Mangalore side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his sister Hemalatha Shetty, on account of which, she sustained injuries. Thereafter, both the accused as well as the deceased were shifted in a vehicle to Adarsha Hospital, Udupi, wherein her sister was declared ‘brought dead’. On the next day at about 10.30 a.m., police conducted Mahazar as per Ex.P2. 11. In the crossexamination of PW1, he has admitted that from the place where they went for performing pooja, they have to cross the road to catch the bus. His sister fell about 2 feet inside the National highway and the rider of the motor cycle had fallen about 15 feet ahead on the National Highway. He has admitted that at the time of accident, a car also moved in front, but he denied the suggestion that the said car hit his sister. The defence of the accused as per the suggestion put to PW1 was that the car hit the deceased and went ahead, due to which the deceased was thrown over the motor cycle which was moving behind the car. It was also suggested that the deceased was crossing the road when the accident took place, which was however denied. 12. The evidence of PW2 also goes to show that after finishing pooja, they came to the main road for catching the bus. At that time at about 2.45 p.m., the deceased was standing by the side of the road near the road divider to cross the road. The deceased as well as PW1 and CW3 were standing, at that time, the motor cycle which came from Mangalore side moving towards Udupi side ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the deceased. It is stated by PW2 that in the said accident, the deceased as well as the bike rider suffered grievous injuries. They were shifted to Adarsha Hospital, Udupi, wherein the doctor declared the deceased brought dead. 13. In the crossexamination of PW2, it is elicited that the place where they went to perform pooja was on the left side of the road towards Mangalore. They were shifted to Adarsha Hospital, Udupi, wherein the doctor declared the deceased brought dead. 13. In the crossexamination of PW2, it is elicited that the place where they went to perform pooja was on the left side of the road towards Mangalore. To go to Udupi, they have to cross the road. He was standing beside her aunt (deceased). At that time, there were 5 to 6 other persons. He has admitted that a car went ahead and he has not seen as to whether the said car hit the deceased. He has admitted that the motor cycle was moving at a little distance and he has not seen as to whether his aunt fell on the motor cycle after being hit by the car. PW2 pleaded his ignorance as to the manner in which the accident has taken place. He is also not definite as to whether the deceased was hit by the car first and due to that as to whether the deceased fell on the motor cycle. 14. The accident in question and the accused being the rider of the motor cycle has not been seriously disputed. However, the evidence of PWs1 and 2 does not indicate as to whether the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent riding by the accused and in the manner projected by the prosecution. Though it is brought on record that there were other persons near the scene of offence, however, their evidence is not forthcoming. The material on record discloses that the place where the deceased, PWs1 and 2 went to perform pooja was on the left side of the road towards Mangalore and they had crossed the road to come to Kothalkata Bus stop and all of them were standing near the road divider. The motor cycle was moving from Mangalore side towards Udupi side and it was on its proper side i.e., on the left side. The place where the incident took place being the National Highway and the accident having taken place near the road divider and since the motor cycle was moving on its proper side from Mangalore towards Udupi, it cannot be said that the accused was rash or negligent in riding the motor cycle, specifically when the defence has elicited from the prosecution witnesses that a car was also moving in front of the motor cycle. PW2 though an eye witness to the incident, has deposed that he has not seen as to whether the accident occurred on account of the car hitting the deceased first and then the deceased coming in contact with the motor cycle. His evidence not being specific with regard to the rash and negligent riding by the rider/accused, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to be illegal. The evidence of other witnesses are not helpful to establish the rash or negligent riding by the accused. The Trial Court having appreciated the evidence and material on record, has come to the conclusion that the suggestion put by the counsel for the accused that the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car purported to be passed on that day and moved ahead without stopping and the witnesses having been admitted that there was a car which also passed on the road at the time of incident and the same creates doubt in the mind of the court regarding the manner of accident as projected by the prosecution. The trial court has appreciated the relevant evidence and material on record and after giving reasons, acquitted the accused. I see no infirmity or illegality in the said order passed by the trial court. 15. For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.