- (1.)By this appeal, the State is challenging the acquittal of the respondent, from an offence punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short).
(2.)The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated thus:
That the incident in question had occurred on 28.11.2004 at about 6:15 a.m. at Sastiwado, Bicholim, in front of the house of one Karapurkar. It is stated that now deceased, Dwarkanath Sirsat was going for a morning walk, when a truck bearing registration no. KA-22-C-8292 came from behind and gave a dash to Dwarkanath Sirsat, in which he sustained grievous injury. According to the prosecution, the deceased as well as the offending truck were proceeding from Assonora to Bicholim and it is claimed that the truck had gone to the right side and had given a dash to the deceased. The truck went ahead and stopped. The driver saw behind and on seeing that the deceased was lying on the road, fled away. Further, according to the prosecution, the accident was witnessed by PW- 6, Deepak Shetkar and PW-7, Shambu Khanekar. It is stated that PW-7, Shambu Khanekar was proceeding on a scooter, whereas PW-6, Deepak Shetkar was a pillion rider on the said scooter and were behind the said truck. Both, PW-6, Deepak Shetkar and PW-7, Shambu Khanekar had witnessed the occurrence of the accident and had noticed the registration number of the truck. It was claimed that these two witnesses had an occasion to see the driver, when the driver momentarily looked back, saw the deceased lying and fled away. It appears that the information about the accident was given by PW-7 Shambu Khanekar to Bicholim Police Station, where PW-12, Prakash Sinari, Head Constable, was Station House Officer. PW-12, Prakash Sinari, Head Constable gave information about the accident to Sanquelim and Keri outposts and requested them to detain the said vehicle, if found. He registered a M.V. Case No. 142/2004 and informed PW-14, P.S.I., Neenad Deulkar about the same. He then proceeded to the spot of the accident and drew a spot panchanama (Exhibit- 37). It appears that the vehicle being truck bearing registration no. KA-22-C-8292 was intercepted and detained at Keri outpost. According to the prosecution, the truck at the relevant time was driven by the respondent. It appears that the information about the accident also reached PW-1, Yogesh Sirsat, son of the deceased, who alongwith his sister, Dr. Anita Sirsat rushed to Primary Health Centre, Bicholim, where the deceased was taken. It was advised that the deceased be taken to G.M.C., Bambolim. According to the prosecution, while the deceased was being carried from Primary Health Centre, Bicholim to G.M.C., Bambolim, the deceased narrated about the incident to PW-1, Yogesh Sirsat and also gave the number of the vehicle. The deceased also informed PW-1, Yogesh Sirsat that the accident is witnessed by PW-6, Deepak Shetkar and PW-7, Shambu Khanekar. The deceased was eventually declared dead on arrival at G.M.C., Bambolim. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer, PW-14, P.S.I., Neenad Deulkar, recorded the statements of the witnesses and on completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the respondent.

(3.)It appears that substance of accusation was explained to the respondent, to which he pleaded not guilty. During the pendency of the case, an application was moved by the Police Inspector, C.I.D., Crime Branch, Dona Paula, Panaji, praying for grant of permission under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to conduct further investigation, which was allowed by order dated 21.04.2006. It appears that a supplementary charge sheet under Sections 279, 304-A of I.P.C. and Section 134(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was filed in the matter. Thereafter, additional substance of accusation was explained for commission of offence under Section 134(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.