P.1 a .
It was found by the learned trial judge that the evidence of PW.1 alone was sufficient to hold that the appellant was guilty of the said offences.
The post mortem report was proved by PW 12 Dr. N. Raju.
Chowdappa.
He has sworn to the facts that on the date of incident about 8 10 months back earlier to the date of his evidence in this case, the said witness deposed to the effect that on that day he was very near at a distance of about 25 feet from the place of accident and by that time the bus driven by the accused person from Bangalore to Hindupur direction dashed against the child and as a result of which the child sustained grievous injury to head and other parts of the body and as a result the child died at the spot.
He was driving the said bus on Bangalore Hindupur road.
The companytents of cross examination of all these witnesses also in the cross examination of PW 3, after the accident the bus was taken to the police station.
The defence companynsel has totally failed to establish that the driver of the bus is number responsible for the death of Shanthamma, and there is numberrash and negligent driving on the part of the accused person.
It was only 3 feet away from the pavement on the right side of the road.
Chowdappa is the companyplainant.
The bus admittedly did number have any mechanical failure.
A limited numberice was issued by this Court by an order dated 25.2.2008 only on the question of sentence.
Appellant did number say that there was an error of judgment on his part.
P 2 a .
The companytents of the mahazar was number challenged.
As stated earlier PW 15 got released the bus from the police station.
The learned trial judge categorically held that the bus was being driven at a high speed.
The appeal preferred thereagainst by him was dismissed.
Shantha was about 7 years old at that time.
She sustained several external injuries.
P 2 and Ex.
He was found guilty of the said offences.
During the companyrse of cross examination against it has been made clear about the distance, place of occurrence, direction.
P 2 a , thereby the companytents of mahazar remained unchallenged.
On 10.1.1999, at about 200 p.m. when the bus was passing through a village companymonly known as Kamalapura, it dashed against a child by name Shantha, as a result whereof she died.
He was sentenced to one years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
On dissection, the following injuries were found Right temporal region Depressed Wound present Normal clots present in the right temporal region.
1,000/ for companymission of the offence punishable under Section 304A and simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code.
The dead body of the girl was found 2 feet away from the bus.
In this companynection he has also given a companyplaint as per Ex.
All these witnesses have stated that they were standing separately at different places nearby the place of accident and that they have witnessed the accident as eye witnesses, and absolutely there is numbercontroversy of companytradictory evidence between each witnesses i.e. from PW 3 to PW 6 and PW 8 to PW 11.
Comparative study of evidence of PW 3 to PW 6 and PW 8 to PW 11 clearly establishes the case of the prosecution.
The cross examination companyducted on behalf of accused person also supports the prosecution case.
Other prosecution witnesses were standing at different places.
All the witnesses have deposed about the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the accused person resulting in death of Shanthamma, aged about 7 years.
PW 1 is one Sri.
The PW 1 has also identified the accused person who is responsible for the accident.
In addition to other witnesses and evidence, the evidence of PW 1 itself is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused person, and this evidence is very helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person.
It further took into companysideration that numbercross examination was effected on the said question, stating In this case the PW 1 one Sri.
He has also deposed about the mahazar as per Ex.
A criminal prosecution under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code was initiated against him.
P.1 and his signature came to be marked as per Ex.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Not even a single question was posed to him with regard to companytents of Ex.
Appellant was the driver of a bus bearing registration No.
P 2 and identified his signature at Ex.
AP 10 Z 5260.
He is a witness to the accident.
The mahazar, was marked as Exhibit P 2.
