- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6949 CRL.A No. 100395 of 2017 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. 100395 OF 2017 (A) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, JOIDA POLICE STATION, JOIDA, U.K. DISTRICT, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B. GUDAWADE, ASPP) AND: MALLIKARJUN S/O HONNAPPA YALABURTI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC BUS DRIVER, R/O: KADEKOPPA, KUSHTAGI TALUK, DIST: KOPPAL. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A.S.R. NAMAZI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AHAMED ALI RAHIMAN SHAH, 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 30.03.2017 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DANDELI IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.01 OF 2012 AND TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279 AND 304-A OF IPC. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2025.05.02 16:01:20 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6949 CRL.A No. 100395 of 2017 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 JMFC, Dandeli in Criminal Case No.1/2012 on 30.03.2017. 2. For brevity, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that, CPI Joida has submitted a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 11.11.2011 at about 3.30 p.m., the accused being the driver of K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.KA-31/F-1195 came from Dandeli side towards Joida, near Chapeli Ghatta, Chapeli village, Sadashivghad-Aurad State Highway the bus was being driven in a great speed and rash and negligent manner endangering human life, and the driver lost control over the bus and dashed against the motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/EA-2484, thereby caused the death of rider of the motorcycle and pillion rider. Thus accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. After investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6949 CRL.A No. 100395 of 2017 charge sheet against the accused and jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused and a case was registered in Criminal Case No.1/2012. In pursuance of summons, accused appeared before the trial Court and enlarged on bail. The substance of accusation of the accused for the above said offences was read over and explained in the language known to him as required under Section 25 of the Cr.P.C., having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove the case of prosecution, in all, 13 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 13 and got marked 14 documents as Exhibit P.1 to P.14. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of accused as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the accused has totally denied the evidence appearing against him and he has not chosen to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf, but he has filed a memo along with eight documents. 5. After hearing the argument of both sides, the trial Court has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6949 CRL.A No. 100395 of 2017 Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the State has preferred this appeal. 6. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri M.B.Gundawade would submit that the Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, facts of the case and evidence on record. Hence, the same is not sustainable in law. He would further submit that PW.1 is the complainant and eyewitness and P.W.3 is another eyewitness. Both of them have supported to the case of prosecution and they have categorically and specifically stated about the rash and negligent driving of the K.S.R.T.C. Bus by its driver and causing the accident. Both these witnesses have deposed before the Trial Court that the Bus was in a high speed and it was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and came towards right side on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the motorcycle, which was proceeding from the opposite direction. The said evidence has not been properly read and appreciated by the trial Court and thereby has come to the wrong conclusion and acquitted the accused. In Ex.P.3- Hand Sketch, the place of accident is shown on the extreme side of the road and the same is also depicts in spot mahazar at - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6949 CRL.A No. 100395 of 2017 Ex.P.2. These two documents have not been properly considered by the trial Court while assessing the evidence and thereby erred in acquitting the accused. The trial Court has acquitted the accused on the ground that P.W.4 to 7 eyewitnesses have not supported to the case of prosecution. The said reasoning assigned by the trial Court is not sustainable as P.W.1 and 3 have supported to the case of prosecution and the trial Court ought to have looked into the quality of the evidence and not the quantity as provided under Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The accused has not explained in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., as to under what circumstances and manner the accident had occurred as the same is within his knowledge. Failure to explain the same would result in drawing adverse inference against the accused. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. Hence, the impugned Judgment suffers from legal infirmity and same requires re-appreciation at the hands of this Court. On all these grounds, he sought for allowing of this appeal and to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6949 CRL.A No. 100395 of 2017 7. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent/accused would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and facts of the case in accordance with law. While recording the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused has produced the memo along with documents i.e., copy of the complaint filed by the accused to the Circle Police Inspector, Joida and copy of complaint sent to the Superintendent of Police, Karwar and copy of complaint sent to the Inspector General of Police, Bengaluru and postal acknowledgements. In the complaint, the accused has clearly stated that the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/EA-2484 rode the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Bus, which was proceeding on the left side of the road. The Investigating Officer has not properly investigated this case and without assigning any reason, the Investigating Officer has submitted the B-Report without recording the evidence of any witnesses, or inmates of the said Bus. Even, P.Ws.1 and 3 have not deposed as to the rash and negligent act on part of the accused/driver of the K.S.R.T.C. Bus. Other witnesses have not supported to the case of prosecution. The trial Court has - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6949 CRL.A No. 100395 of 2017 properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned Judgment of acquittal. On all these grounds, he sought for dismissal of this appeal. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the materials place before this Court, the following points would arise for my consideration: (i) Whether the impugned Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court suffers from legal infirmities requiring this Court to intercede? (ii) What order? 9. My answer to the above points are as under : Point No.(i): in the Negative Point No.(ii): as per the final order. Regarding Point No.(i) 10. 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 powers of the Appellate Court in the appeal against the order of acquittal. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6949 CRL.A No. 100395 of 2017 11. 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 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. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6949 CRL.A No. 100395 of 2017 (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.” 12. 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 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6949 CRL.A No. 100395 of 2017 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. …” 13. 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 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 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6949 CRL.A No. 100395 of 2017 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.…” 14. 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.” 15. 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 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 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6949 CRL.A No. 100395 of 2017 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.” 16. It is also necessary to mention here as to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as to burden of proof in an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 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. 17. Keeping in mind the Judgments (supra), the case on hand needs to be appreciated. The CPI, Joida Police Station has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC alleging that on 11.11.2011 at about 3.30 p.m. the accused being the driver of K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.KA-31/F-1195 drove the same from Dandeli towards Joida in a high speed, as a result he has lost control over the Bus and dashed to the motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/EA-2484, which was proceeding - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6949 CRL.A No. 100395 of 2017 from Joida towards Dandeli and thereby caused the death of rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle. 18. In the case on hand, in the charge sheet 21 witnesses have been cited, out of them CW.1 is the complainant, who is examined as P.W.1. P.Ws.9 to 13 are shown as eyewitnesses. Complainant and eyewitnesses have examined as P.W.1, 5 to 7. P.W.4-Deepa Suresh Mendolkar, P.W.5-Nagaraj Parasappan Hanchinamani, conductor of the Bus, P.W.6-Jyotiba Savantappa Jadhav and P.W.7-Shivanand Gurubasappa Hunashikatti have not supported to the case of prosecution. All these witnesses are treated as hostile witnesses with the permission of the Court and cross-examined by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. Even during the course of cross-examination, all these witnesses have categorically denied the statement said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which were marked as Ex.P.4 to 7. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to elicit any favourable answers from the above said witnesses to substantiate its case. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6949 CRL.A No. 100395 of 2017 19. Remaining material witnesses, i.e., the complainant P.W.1-Mallappa Deemappa Bassapur and P.W.3-Ajit Ramchandra Nayak have deposed in their evidence that the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. Bus drove the same in a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle ridden by the deceased. Both witnesses have not deposed as to the rash and negligent act on part of the accused. 20. During the course of cross-examination, P.W.1 has clearly stated that there is a curve towards left side of the road. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.3, he has admitted that prior to the accident he has not witnessed the proceeding of the bike and only after the accident, he has witnessed this incident. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.3, the contradictions are marked as Ex.D.1 and D2. Though there is an extreme curve near the place of accident, Investigating Officer has not shown the same in the spot mahazar at Ex.P.2. The documents produced by the accused reveals that the accused has lodged a complaint against the rider of the motorcycle as to the rash and negligent riding at the relevant point of time. Without conducting any investigation, the Investigating Officer has issued an - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6949 CRL.A No. 100395 of 2017 endorsement that the complaint is false. When the complaint is filed by the driver of the bus, the Investigating Officer ought to have investigated the case, but he has not investigated and even the Investigating Officer has not disclosed the complaint filed by this accused in the final report. 21. On a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence placed on record and keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions, I have re-appreciated / re-evaluated the entire evidence on record. Even on re-appreciation / re- evaluation of the evidence on record, I do not find any error / legal infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Hence, I answer point No.(i) in the ‘negative’. Regarding Point No.(ii): 22. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is dismissed. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6949 CRL.A No. 100395 of 2017 (ii) The Judgment dated 30.03.2017 passed in Criminal Case No.01/2012 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Dandeli is hereby confirmed. (iii) Registry to send a copy of this Judgment along with trial Court records to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE CKK/RSH CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 16