JUDGMENT : 1. Though the present appeal has been listed for hearing IA No.1/2019, with the consent of the learned High Court Government Pleader, the same is taken up for final disposal. 2. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader. 3. The present appeal has been preferred by the State being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Kadur, in C.C.No.651/2015 dated 15.5.2018, whereunder the accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC. 4. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 25.2.2015 one Ravi Kumar was proceeding in a car bearing registration No.KA.18/N.9661 at about 10.30 p.m. from Arasikere, at that time the accused being the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA.41/B.230 drove the same rashly and negligently and dashed to the said car, due to which the said Ravikumar sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to government Hospital, Kadur and subsequently he succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the complaint a case has been registered in Crime No.45/2015. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took the cognizance, secured the presence of the accused and after following the formalities under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. the plea was recorded, accused pleaded not guilty and he claims to be tried and as such the case was set down for trial. 5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution got examined 8 witnesses and got marked 12 documents. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused has not led any evidence and has not got marked any documents and after hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused the trial Court acquitted the accused. Challenging the legality and correctness of the order, the State is before this Court. 6. The main contention urged by the learned High Court Government Pleader is that the Court below without considering the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 has come to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly acquitted the accused. He further submitted that PWs.2 and 3 are the mahazar witnesses to Ex.P2, they have also supported the case of the prosecution and the accused has not denied the alleged accident. He further submitted that PWs.2 and 3 are the mahazar witnesses to Ex.P2, they have also supported the case of the prosecution and the accused has not denied the alleged accident. Under such circumstances the Court below ought to have convicted the accused. He further submitted that in 313 statement also accused has not taken any specific defence. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order. 7. After perusal of the records, material and evidence made available by the learned High Court Government Pleader, I felt that it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent/accused and as such the same has been dispensed with. 8. The prosecution in order to prove its case got examined 8 witnesses. PW.1 is the complainant. In his evidence he has deposed that he was proceeding on his motorbike on the date of the alleged accident and at that time the deceased was proceeding in his Car bearing registration No.KA.18/N.9661 and at about 10.30 p.m. a lorry bearing registration No.KA.41/B.230 came with great speed and dashed to the said car and as a result of the same, he sustained injuries to the head and on other parts of the body and immediately he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Kadur and on the way he died and the same fact has been informed to him and he went to the hospital and thereafter he filed the complaint as per Ex.P1. During the course of crossexamination he has admitted that he has not seen the accident. PWs.2 and 3 are the spot mahazar pancha to Ex.P2, they have spoken with regard to drawing of the spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. PW4 has deposed that the deceased has gone to Arasikere in a car bearing registration No.KA.18/N.9661 and when he was returning back, at about 10.30 p.m. a lorry bearing registration No.KA.41/B.230 came rashly and negligently and dashed to the said car and as a result of the same he sustained injuries and on the way to the hospital he breathed his last. During the course of crossexamination he has deposed that he is not an eyewitness to the alleged incident. PW5 is an eyewitness to the alleged incident. He has deposed that he knows the deceased. During the course of crossexamination he has deposed that he is not an eyewitness to the alleged incident. PW5 is an eyewitness to the alleged incident. He has deposed that he knows the deceased. On 25.2.2015 at about 4.30 p.m. he had been to his inlaws’ house and when he was returning at about 10.30 p.m. he saw the deceased going in a car bearing registration No.KA.18/N.9661 and at that time a lorry bearing registration No.KA.41/B.230 came with a great speed and dashed to the said car and as a result of the same the driver of the car sustained injuries and he was shifted to the hospital. During the course of crossexamination he has admitted that he was alone on the motorcycle and the said fact has not been stated before the police and other suggestions have been denied. PW6 is the Head Constable who received the complaint as per Ex.P1 and registered the case and issued the FIR as per Ex.P12. PW7 is the Investigating Office who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet against the accused. PW8 is the Police Inspector, he has also partly investigated the case. 9. On perusal of the evidence, the only witness who is relevant for the purpose of consideration of the point in issue is PW5. PW1 and PW4 are not the eyewitnesses. Even though PW5 has deposed that he is an eyewitness and has witnessed the alleged incident, but in his examination in chief itself he has deposed that the driver of the lorry was driving the said lorry with great speed. Nowhere he has deposed that the alleged accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent act of the accused though he has identified the accused before the Court. 10. It is well proposed proposition of law that in order to bring home the guilt of the accused under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the IPC, rashness and negligence of the accused has to be proved. Even the inference can be drawn that if a reasonable care is not taken and because of that if any accident has taken place, then it can be attributed about the negligence on the part of the driver. But no such material has been produced by leading the evidence by the prosecution. Even the inference can be drawn that if a reasonable care is not taken and because of that if any accident has taken place, then it can be attributed about the negligence on the part of the driver. But no such material has been produced by leading the evidence by the prosecution. Under the said facts and circumstances, I feel that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court after considering the evidence has came to a right conclusion. The said judgment is neither perverse nor illegal, the same is liable to be confirmed. Accordingly, I pass the following order; The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. Consequently, the application IA No.1/2019 filed for condonation of delay of 170 days is also dismissed.