- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5160 CRL.A No. 100032 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100032 OF 2018 (A) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE THROUGH ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.) AND: SRI SHREEJITH .S. S/O. SRIKANDANA NAYAR, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: ARCHITECT, R/O. HOUSE NO.13/1748, "KARTIKA", KANNAMULA, TIRUVANTAPURAM-695011. KERALA STATE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 09.08.2017 PASSED BY THE JMFC, BHATKAL IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.760/2017 AND TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279 AND 304(A) OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Date: 2025.03.25 16:20:28 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5160 CRL.A No. 100032 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in C.C. No.760/2015 on the file of the J.M.F.C., Bhatkal dated 09.08.2017. 2. Parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal is that the Circle Inspector of Police, Bhatkal filed the charge sheet against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. It is alleged that on 16.04.2015 at about 10:00 a.m., the accused being the driver of Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No.KL-08/BA-1357 was driving the same from Karwar to Mangalore NH17 opposite Belke Society at Bhatkal, drove in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to human life and dashed the pedestrian by name Badiya Sannu Gonda, who was waiting for bus in the side of NH17 road. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and died in the hospital. Thus, the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5160 CRL.A No. 100032 of 2018 4. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance was taken against the accused for the alleged commission of offences and case was registered in C.C. No.760/2015. Accused appeared before the trial Court and enlarged on bail. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. 5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined 10 witnesses as PWs.1 to 10 and 16 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P16. On closure of prosecution side evidence, the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. However, during the course of cross-examination of PW5, Ex.D1 was marked. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5160 CRL.A No. 100032 of 2018 6. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of materials placed before me, the following points arise for my consideration. i. Whether the State has made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. ii. What order. 7. My answer to the above points are as under: i. Negative ii. As per final order 8. Before adverting to the actual facts of the case and appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to refer the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope and power of Appellate Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. 9. In the case of Motiram Padu Joshi & Others v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 676, at paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is held thus: “23. While considering the scope of power of the appellate court in an appeal against the order of acquittal, after referring to various judgments, in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007)4 SCC 415, this Court summarised the principle as under:- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5160 CRL.A No. 100032 of 2018 “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5160 CRL.A No. 100032 of 2018 is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 10. In the case of MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS reported in 2019 SCC ONLINE 69, at paragraph 16 of the judgment it is held as under: “16. The High Court in the present case was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. In such a case, it is well settled that the High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because it opines that a different view is possible or even preferable. The High Court, in other words, should not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because two views are possible. The interference of the High Court in such cases is governed by well-established principles. According to these principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence by the trial court is capricious or its conclusions are without evidence that the High Court may reverse an order of acquittal. The High Court may be justified in interfering where it finds that the order of acquittal is not in accordance with law and that the approach of the trial court has led to a miscarriage of justice. …” - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5160 CRL.A No. 100032 of 2018 11. In the case of HARI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in 2000 SCC ONLINE 933, at paragraph 4 of the judgment, it is observed thus: “4. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan on the other hand contended that the power of the High Court while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal is in no way different from the power while hearing an appeal against conviction and the Court, therefore was fully justified in re-appreciating the entire evidence, upon which the order of acquittal was based. The High Court having examined the reasons of the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PWs 6 & 7 and having arrived at the conclusion, that those reasons are in the realm of conjectures and there has been gross miscarriage of justice and the mis- appreciation of the evidence on record is the basis for acquittal, was fully entitled to set aside an order of acquittal and no error can be said to have been committed. It is too well settled that the power of the High Court, while hearing an appeal against an acquittal is as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction and it had full power to re- appreciate the entire evidence, but if two views on the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal, merely because it feels that it would sitting as a trial court, have taken the other view. While re- appreciating - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5160 CRL.A No. 100032 of 2018 the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the learned trial Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice.…” 12. In the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KISTOORA RAM reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE 684, at paragraph 8 of the judgment it is held as under: “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 13. In the case of MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2016)10 SCC 220, at paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is observed thus: “12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5160 CRL.A No. 100032 of 2018 competent court after a full-fledged trial, and once the trial court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on the appellate court while dealing with the appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the power of the appellate court to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon which the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a conclusion.” 14. It is also necessary to mention here as to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as to burden of proof in offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. In the case of NANJUNDAPPA AND ANOTHER vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2022 LiveLaw (5) 489, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur stricto sensu would not apply to criminal cases. 15. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.04.2015 at about 10:00 a.m., the accused being the driver of Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No.KL-08/BA-1357 was driving the same from Karwar to Mangalore NH17 opposite Belke - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5160 CRL.A No. 100032 of 2018 Society at Bhatkal, drove in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to human life and dashed the pedestrian by name Badiya Sannu Gonda, who was waiting for bus in the side of NH17 road. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and died in the hospital. 16. In charge sheet that there are 16 witnesses cited in the charge sheet. Out of them, 9 witnesses are examined as PWs.1 to 9. CW1 – complainant, Vasanta Nagayya Gonda examined as PW1. He has deposed in his evidence that as to the contents of the complaint, which is marked as Ex.P1. He has also deposed as to the mahazar conducted by the Police as per Ex.P2. 17. CW2 – Nagappa Masti Naik said to be the attester to the spot panchanama and also the inquest panchanama has deposed as to the conduct of the said spot panchanama and inquest panchanama. 18. CW5 – Raghavendra Kuppayya Gonda, CW6 – Krishna Bachha Gonda, CW7 – Ramesh Masti Gonda, CW8 – Keshava Mastayya Naik, said to be the eye witnesses are examined as PWs.3 to 6 respectively. All these witnesses have - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5160 CRL.A No. 100032 of 2018 deposed in their evidence that on 16.04.2015 at 09:45 a.m., when they were standing near the Nanda Deepa Xerox centre by the side of NH-17, Bachhgonda was waiting for the bus to go to Bhatkal at 10:00 a.m. the driver of the white car came from Kundapura in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over his vehicle and dashed against Badiya Sannu Gonda who was aged 75 years. As a result, he sustained injuries on his head and legs. Thereafter he died in the hospital. 19. CW10 – Rama Badiya Gonda examined as PW7 is a hearsay witness, the son of the deceased. He has deposed as to the alleged accident, after filing the complaint from his son PW1. 20. CW14 – Naveen Govind Naik, who was examined as PW8. He has deposed in his evidence that he has assisted to the Investigating Officers for conducting spot panchanama, inquest panchanama and rough sketch. 21. CW16 – Prashant Suresh Naik, CPI and CW15 – Manjunath T.H., PSI examined as PWs.9 and 10 respectively. They have deposed as to their respective investigation conducted by them. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5160 CRL.A No. 100032 of 2018 22. Though the material witness, the complainant PW1 – Vasanta, the eyewitness PWs.3 to 6, Raghavendra Kuppayya Gonda, Krishna Bachha Gonda, Ramesh Naik and Keshava Naik have deposed in their evidence that the accident occurred, when the deceased was standing by the side of the road, but during their cross-examination they have categorically stated that the accident has been occurred when the deceased was crossing the road along with CW1. 23. PW5 – Ramesh Naik has clearly admitted that only after hearing the sound he came to know this accident. 24. This admission of the above said material witnesses clearly goes to show that the Investigating Officer has suppressed the material facts and stated in the complaint that while the deceased was standing by the side of the road, this accident was occurred. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer has prepared the panchanama and spot mahazar and also recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. but fortunately, all the material witnesses have deposed in their cross-examination that the accident occurred while the deceased was crossing the road. The material placed before the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5160 CRL.A No. 100032 of 2018 Court reveals that the evidence of material prosecution witnesses are cogent and convincing to the case of the prosecution. Same creates doubt as to the act of the accused. 25. Considering all these aspects, the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and acquitted the accused. 26. On careful re-consideration, re-examination and re- appreciation of the evidence on record and also keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions, I am of the considered opinion that absolutely there are no materials to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative and for the aforesaid reasons and discussions, with regard to point No.2, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE RSH / Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 20