- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9163 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100071 OF 2019 (A) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE GUTTAL POLICE STATION, CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, HAVERI RURAL CIRCLE, HAVERI DISTRICT, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) AND: MARUTHI S/O. JAYAPPA HAUNSHI, AGE: 25 YEARS, R/O. KANCHARAGATTI, TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 07.12.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI IN CRL.A.NO.10/2018 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 07.12.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI IN CRL.A.NO.10/2018 AND TO CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN C.C. NO.136/2011 DATED 28.12.2017 AND THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 304(A) OF IPC. 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: 2025.07.25 10:28:34 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9163 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in Crl.A.No.10/2018 dated 07.12.2018, by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Haveri1, whereby the First Appellate Court set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.136/2011 dated 28.12.2017 by the Addl. Civil Judge an JMFC, Haveri and acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. 2. The abridged facts of the prosecution case are that, on 01.01.2011 at about 3:50 p.m. on Kancharagatta-Guttal village road near Harijana colony, the respondent/accused being the driver of tractor-trailer bearing Registration No.KA- 27/T-9279-80, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the pedestrian boy namely Ajjaiah Hemappa Harikatti aged about 11 years, when he was crossing the road. Due to the same, the boy succumbed at the spot. Hence, PW.1 the eyewitness to the incident lodged a complaint against the driver of tractor-trailer on the same day as per Ex.P1 before 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9163 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2019 the appellant-Police. On the strength of Ex.P1, the appellant- Police registered FIR against the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC in Crime No.1/2011 as per Ex.P18. Subsequently, the Investigation Officer laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. 3. After securing the presence of accused, the learned Magistrate framed charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences; however, he denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses as PW1 to PW13 and marked 18 documents as per Ex.P1 to P18. 5. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. The correctness and legality of the said judgment is challenged by the accused in Crl.A.No.10/2018 before the First Appellate Court. Upon re-assessment of the evidence on record, the First Appellate Court set-aside the judgment of conviction and order - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9163 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2019 of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate and acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him in the impugned judgment. The same is challenged by the State in this appeal. 6. I have heard Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for the appellant/State, so also Sri. Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for the respondent/accused and perused the trial Court records. 7. The primary contention of the learned HCGP is that the judgment under this appeal suffers from perversity and illegality, since the learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective. The prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt by placing sufficient evidence before the learned Magistrate and as such, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the charges leveled against him. However, the First Appellate Court overturned the said judgment without any valid reasons. According to her, PWs.1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 are the eyewitnesses to the incident, who have supported the case of prosecution and also identified the accused who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9163 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2019 They specifically stated, the accused was driving the tractor- trailer with a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased boy; as a result the boy died at the spot. In such circumstance, the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court lacks merit and liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, she prays to allow the appeal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused contended that the First Appellate Court, after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record, passed a well-reasoned judgment, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. He contended that all the eyewitnesses to the incident categorically admitted that the tractor-trailer which was drove by the accused at the time of incident was loaded with sugarcane and the same was in a right direction coming from Kancharagatti towards Marol. Further, the spot of accident is a curved road and there is no possibility of driving the vehicle with a high speed in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased boy after attending the nature call, suddenly crossed the road, due to which, the accident caused. As such, the First Appellate Court rightly appreciated the evidence. With these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9163 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2019 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the documents available on record, the sole point that would arises for my consideration is: “Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.136/2011 dated 28.12.2017 by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Haveri and thereby acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC?” 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both the learned counsel so also evidence available on record. 11. It could be gathered from records, the death of deceased-Ajjaiah Hemappa Harikatte aged about 11 years in the road accident is not disputed by the accused. Nevertheless, the prosecution placed Ex.P16-Post-mortem report. The opinion of the Doctor as to the cause of death was due to ‘haemorrhage shock caused due to severe crush injury over the abdomen’. In addition, the prosecution placed inquest panchanama-Ex.P10 conducted on the corpse of deceased. Hence, on collective - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9163 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2019 reading of Exs.P10 and P16, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the accidental death of deceased. To connect the accused for the cause, the prosecution predominantly placed reliance on the evidence of eyewitnesses- PWs.1, 2, 4, 5 and 7. Among these witnesses, PW.1-the complainant who set the criminal law into motion has stated that his tea shop was situated near the place of incident and on the date of incident, the deceased after attending the nature call, while crossing the road, the accused being the driver of tractor-trailer dashed the deceased boy, as a result the boy died at the spot. Later, he lodged a complaint-Ex.P1. PW.1 reiterated the averments of the complaint in his evidence. The other eyewitnesses-PWs.2, 4, 5 and 7 also deposed similarly as that of PW.1. However, on careful perusal of their cross- examination, all these witnesses have admitted that at the time of accident, the tractor-trailer was loaded with sugarcane and the place of incident was curved road. They further admitted, the accused drove the said vehicle from Kancharagatti towards Marol. On perusal of the sketch-Ex.P17 and the photograph- Ex.P4, the vehicle of the accused was in a right direction i.e., on the left side of the road. Moreover, the place of accident is a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9163 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2019 curved road. In such circumstance, there is a remote chance/ possibility of driving the tractor-trailer with a high speed. As stated by the eyewitnesses, the deceased boy after attending the nature call suddenly crossed the road and unfortunately met with an accident. Even otherwise, the eyewitnesses stated that the accused was driving the tractor-trailer in a high speed and they have not stated that he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 12. This Court in Crl.RP No.1004/2021 held that, mere driving the vehicle in high speed, itself cannot establish that he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. This Court, in the aforesaid case, by relying on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs Satish2 has held in paragraphs-17 and 18 as under: “17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Satish reported in (1998) 8 SCC 493 has settled the position of law that mere driving of vehicle in high speed neither amounts to negligence nor rashness in itself and has held in Paragraph No.4 of the said judgment as under; 4. Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not be 2 (1998) 8 SCC 493 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9163 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2019 speak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur". There is evidence to show that immediately before the truck turned turtle, there was a big jerk. It is not explained as to whether the jerk was because of the uneven road or mechanical failure. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle had submitted his report. That report is not forthcoming from the record and the Inspector was not examined for reasons best known to the prosecution. This is a serious infirmity and lacuna in the prosecution case.” - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9163 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2019 18. Effectively, at this juncture I find it imperative to touch upon the nuances of understanding the term ‘negligence’, negligence essentially is defined or rather understood in a rudimentary sense as a breach of duty. Meaning, an act of negligence must be coupled with willful omission of doing something which a prudent person would have done in similar circumstance. This breach of duty should lead to some kind of damage. Further, while ascertaining the degree of negligence, it is significant to ruminate on the ‘Principle of Foreseeability and Proximity’ as laid down by Lord Atkin in the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson reported in 1932 A.C 562. Additionally, let us take a moment to delve into comprehending and elucidate the conundrum that needs to be addressed: What amounts to rashness and negligence? Rashness innately implies to recklessness coupled with a state of conscious breach of duty to care where there exists a necessity of care i.e., negligence. Rashness and negligence are multi-faceted concepts which cannot be comprehended and interpreted in isolation, it significantly depends on facts and circumstances of each case.” 13. Moreover, this appeal against order of acquittal and the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments held that in a case of acquittal, if the trial Court has taken a plausible view, the Appellate Court shall not interfere in the said judgment. Applying the said principles by the Hon’ble Apex Court stated supra, I am of the considered view that the learned First Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence on record in the right perspective and passed the impugned - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9163 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2019 judgment, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. In that view of the matter, I answer point raised above in the ‘affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal stands dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE YAN CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 11