- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8398 CRL.A No. 100113 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100113 OF 2017 (A) BETWEEN: SHRI ISHWAR S/O. LAXMAN KANCHAGAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. GOLDSMITH AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO.1913, UPPIN GALLI, BAILHONGAL, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI NARAYAN K. JOSHI AGE: MAJOR, OCC. POST OFFICE SERVANT, R/O. MAIN POST OFFICE, BAILHONGAL, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C.R. CHIKKAMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ACQUITTAL AGAINST THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT IN C.C.NO. 879 OF 2010 DATED 28.12.2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAILHONGAL, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.07.09 10:08:29 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8398 CRL.A No. 100113 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This appeal directed against the judgment of acquittal passed in CC No.879/2010 dated 28.12.2016 by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Bailhongal1, whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC and Section 134 r/w Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19882. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 30.01.2006 at about 10:00 a.m., the appellant/complainant was returning from his house on motorcycle bearing reg.No.KA- 31/K-4058. While he passing near one fertilizer shop, Bailhongal, the respondent/accused came from opposite direction on his motorcycle bearing reg.No.KA-30/H-3037 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the complainant. Due to which, the complainant fell down and sustained injury on his toes. Thereafter, he took treatment at Bailhongal Hospital and subsequently, on 02.02.2006, he lodged a complaint before Bailhongal Police, however, the said 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8398 CRL.A No. 100113 of 2017 complaint was not registered by the said Police. As such, he filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Magistrate in PCR No.21/2006 on 28.02.2006 and the same was referred to the jurisdictional Police by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) for investigation. Thereafter, the jurisdictional Police investigated the case and laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC and Section 134 r/w Section 187 of the M.V. Act. 3. To prove the case before the trial Court, the complainant examined eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and marked 4 documents as Ex.P1 to P4. However, the accused neither examined any witnesses nor produced any documents on his behalf. 4. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him. The said judgment of acquittal is under challenge in this appeal by the complainant. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8398 CRL.A No. 100113 of 2017 5. I have heard the learned counsel Sri. Santosh B Rawoot for the appellant/complainant, so also, learned counsel Sri. C.R. Chikkamath, for the respondent/accused. 6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant is that the trial Court has grossly erred while acquitting the respondent/accused for the charges leveled against him, despite the complainant placed sufficient evidence and documents on record. As such, the impugned judgment suffers from perversity and illegality. He contended that complainant/PW1 has categorically deposed in his evidence that on the date of accident, the accused rode his motorcycle in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the complainant (PW1) and thereby caused injuries to him. Subsequently, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Bailhongal Police on 02.02.2006, however, the said police refused to register the FIR, hence, left with no other option; he approached the jurisdictional Magistrate by filing a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. He further contended that PW6 and PW7, eye-witnesses to the incident, though turned hostile to the prosecution case, PW7 stated about the accident to the motorcycle of the complainant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8398 CRL.A No. 100113 of 2017 in the spot of incident. In such circumstance, the accident in question is proved and Wound Certificate placed by the complainant at Ex.P4 clearly corroborates the testimony of PW1. Accordingly, the complainant has proved the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Despite, the trial Court acquitted the accused in the impugned judgment. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal and to convict the respondent/accused for the charges leveled against him. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused contended that the trial Court after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record passed a well-reasoned judgment, which does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court. He further contended that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused by placing cogent evidence. According to the learned counsel, the accident in question is allegedly caused on 30.01.2006 and the private complaint was filed on 28.02.2006 i.e. after one month. Further, there is a delay of 3 days even while approaching the Police by PW1. He also contended that the eye-witnesses PW6 & PW7 totally turned - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8398 CRL.A No. 100113 of 2017 hostile to the case of the prosecution. As such, the complainant has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the charges leveled against him. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the evidence and documents on record, the only point that falls for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the charges leveled against him?” 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both the learned counsels, so also evidence available on record. 10. As could be gathered from the records, the accident in question was allegedly caused on 30.01.2006 at about 10.00 a.m. According to the complainant, the accused came on motorcycle in a wrong direction and dashed the motorcycle of the complainant and caused accident, due to the same, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8398 CRL.A No. 100113 of 2017 complainant sustained injuries on his person. The complainant has neither lodged complaint to the jurisdictional Police after the incident nor admitted to the hospital for the injuries sustained by him. According to him, he lodged a complaint before the Police as per Ex.C1 on 02.02.2006 i.e., after 3 days of the alleged accident. However, the jurisdictional Police have not registered the FIR. Later, after lapse of one month, the complainant filed a private complaint against the accused in PCR No.21/2006 on 28.02.2006. Subsequently, the jurisdictional Police registered the case and after investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused for the charges leveled against him. On a careful perusal of the evidence of PW1, he failed to explain the inordinate delay in lodging complaint before the Police and delay in filing the private complaint. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused, PW6 and PW7-the independent eyewitnesses to the incident have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case. Though the complainant produced Ex.P4- Wound Certificate, which depicts that the complainant has sustained one grievous injury, however, the said wound certificate is dated 25.02.2006 i.e., after lapse of one month. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8398 CRL.A No. 100113 of 2017 In such circumstance, the complainant has failed to prove the very accident in question and the charges leveled against the accused by placing cogent evidence. In such circumstance, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and interference in the impugned judgment does not call for. Accordingly, the point raised above is answered in the “affirmative” and I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal in Crl.A.No.100113/2017 stands dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE JTR CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2