- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6955 CRL.A No. 100068 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100068 OF 2018 (A) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, YALLAPUR POLICE STATION, YALLAPUR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCAWTE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADDL. S.P.P.) AND: ASHOK S/O. KANNAPPA SWAMI YENE GOUNDAR AGE:37 YEARS, R/O. HOSAKAMBI,HILLUR, ANKOLA, DIST:KARWAR. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 25.07.2017 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, YALLAPUR IN C.C.NO.177/2015 AND TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279 AND 304(A) OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2025.04.29 12:21:58 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6955 CRL.A No. 100068 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Yallapur in C.C. No.177/2015 dated 25.07.2017 [hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”]. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Police Inspector, Yallapur submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code [IPC]. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 08.02.2015 at 01:30 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Yallapur, at Yallapur National Highway No.63 near Anjaneya Temple, the driver of the Tipper Lorry - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6955 CRL.A No. 100068 of 2018 bearing registration No.GA-05/T-1743 drove the same from Ankola side to Yallapur in a high speed and lost control over the vehicle as a result tipper toppled thereby causing the accident. The impact of the accident was that cleaner of the vehicle one Dasharat died on the spot. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused. Cognizance was taken and case was registered in C.C. No.177/2015. The accused was enlarged on bail. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove the case of the accused, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11. 15 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P15. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement under - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6955 CRL.A No. 100068 of 2018 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. 5. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. 7. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that the order passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. Hence, same is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that PW1 is the complainant and an eyewitness has supported the case of the prosecution and identified the accused. The accused was the driver of the vehicle involved in the incident - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6955 CRL.A No. 100068 of 2018 and he was driving the vehicle with great speed in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. 8. PW8 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. He has specifically deposed that the accident in question was not due to any mechanical defect. PW7, the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, has stated that as on the date of the incident, the respondent / accused was the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. The accused has not offered any explanation while recording the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On all these grounds, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor sought for allowing this appeal. 9. Notice is duly served to the respondent and despite the said notice, he has remained absent and unrepresented. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6955 CRL.A No. 100068 of 2018 10. Having heard the arguments of learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and on perusal of records, the points that would arise for my consideration is: “i. Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court suffers from legal infirmities requiring this Court to intercede? ii. What order?” 11. My findings to the above points are as under: i. Negative. ii. As per final order. 12. 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 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6955 CRL.A No. 100068 of 2018 scope and powers of the Appellate Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. 13. 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:- “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 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6955 CRL.A No. 100068 of 2018 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 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6955 CRL.A No. 100068 of 2018 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 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 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6955 CRL.A No. 100068 of 2018 14. 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 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6955 CRL.A No. 100068 of 2018 court has led to a miscarriage of justice. …” 15. 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 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6955 CRL.A No. 100068 of 2018 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 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 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6955 CRL.A No. 100068 of 2018 reverse the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice.…” 16. 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.” 17. In the case of MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2016)10 SCC - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6955 CRL.A No. 100068 of 2018 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 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.” 18. It is also necessary to mention here as to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as to burden - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6955 CRL.A No. 100068 of 2018 of proof in offence under Section 304A of IPC. In the case of NANJUNDAPPA AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2022 LIVELAW (5) 489, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would not stricto sensu apply to criminal cases. 19. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. The Investigating Officer has cited 12 witnesses in the charge sheet. Out of them, PW1 is the complaint. CWs.6 to 8 are the eyewitness. CW6 – Satish is shown as eyewitness, who is examined as PW9. He has not supported to the case of the prosecution. This witness is treated as hostile witness and with the permission of the Court, PW9 was cross- examined by the prosecution. During his cross- examination, he has admitted the suggestions made by the Assistant Public Prosecutor that the accident occurred due to driving of the vehicle in a high speed. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6955 CRL.A No. 100068 of 2018 But during the course of cross-examination made by the accused, he has categorically denied the statement recorded by the Police as per Ex.D1 that he was doing tea shop business. Further he has clearly admitted that he has not witnessed the speed of the vehicle. 20. CW1 – Sangamesh Basavanni Hosamani examined as PW1. He has deposed in his evidence as to the filing of the complaint as per Ex.P1. This witness has not deposed as to the rash and negligent act of the accused. In Ex.P1 – complaint, it is stated that while he was proceeding on a motorcycle, this accident occurred. But the registration number of the vehicle of PW1 is not disclosed in Ex.P1 and the same is also admitted by PW1. Therefore, this evidence of PW1, who has not deposed as to rash and negligent act on the part of the accused is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6955 CRL.A No. 100068 of 2018 alleged offences. Further he has clearly admitted that CW11 – PSI, Yallapur has told that the tyre of the lorry was burst. Further he has admitted that he do not know the name of the accused. At the time of filing of the complaint, accused was in the Police Station. Police have informed as to the accident and accordingly, he lodged the complaint. Therefore, this evidence of PW1 itself reveals that he is not an eye witness. 21. Viewed from any angle, there is no cogent, convincing, clinching and corroborative evidence before the Court. The Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Even on re-appreciation / re-evaluation of the entire evidence on record, I do not find any error / legal infirmity in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the negative. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6955 CRL.A No. 100068 of 2018 Regarding Point No.2: 22. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R (i) Appeal dismissed; (ii) The judgment of acquittal dated 25th July, 2017 passed in C.C. No.177 of 2015 by the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Yallapur is confirmed; (iii) Registry to transmit the Trial Court records along with the copy of this judgment to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE RSH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 19