- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9042 CRL.A No. 100203 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100203 OF 2017 (A) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY C.P.I., HONNAVAR CIRCLE, HONNAVAR, THROUGH ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, DHARWAD. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) AND: GURUMURTHY NAGESH PRABHU AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. ENGINEER, R/A: #436, MAHAMYA KRUPA, 14/1, 19TH C MAIN, 1 N BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 22.02.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. JMFC, HONNAVAR INSOFAR IT RELATES TO ACQUITTAL OF RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 338 AND 304-A OF IPC AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 338 AND 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: 2025.07.24 11:48:59 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9042 CRL.A No. 100203 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in CC No.348/2015 dated 22.02.2017 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Honavar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) whereby the trial Court acquitted the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC. 2. The factual matrix of the case are that; On 13.04.2015 at about 4:30 p.m., the respondent- accused being the driver of Mahindra Car bearing No.KA-03-MJ- 6278 drove the said vehicle on National Highway No.206 near Hadinabala, Mascalmakki with a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner; thereby dashed the Pulsar Motorcycle bearing No.KA-47-K-7749 which was coming from the opposite direction and caused the accident. Due to the accident, the driver of the motorcycle and the pillion rider were sustained grievous injuries and the rider succumbed to the injuries on the way to the Hospital. Subsequently, one of the eyewitness to the incident i.e., PW.1 has lodged the complaint on 13.04.2015 i.e., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9042 CRL.A No. 100203 of 2017 on the same day before the complainant-Police against the accused as per Ex.P.1. On the strength of Ex.P.1, the complainant-Police registered FIR in Crime No.79/2015 dated 13.04.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC against the accused as per Ex.P.15. Thereafter, the Investigation Officers–PWs.7 and 8 conducted the investigation by drawing relevant mahazars, recorded the statement of witnesses and laid charge-sheet against the accused before the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC. 3. In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 and marked 16 documents as Exs.P.1 to 16. The accused not examined any witness on his behalf, marked 1 document as Ex.D.1. 4. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused for the charges levelled against him. The said judgement is challenged by the State in this appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9042 CRL.A No. 100203 of 2017 5. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader Smt. Girija S. Hiremath for the complainant-State and learned counsel Sri A.M. Gundawade for the respondent-accused. 6. The primary contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader is that the trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused for the charges levelled against him, despite the prosecution placing sufficient evidence before the trial Court. She contended that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2- the eyewitnesses to the incident and PW.3-the injured witness clearly established the guilt of the accused. All these witnesses have categorically deposed that the accused drove his Car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of deceased. As a result, PW.3 sustained injuries; the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Further, PW.4-the spot mahazar witness also supported the case of prosecution. In such circumstances, the spot of accident is also proved by the prosecution. She also contended that the evidence of these witnesses corroborates the evidence of Investigation Officer- PW.7. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate committed an error while acquitting the accused. Accordingly, she prays to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9042 CRL.A No. 100203 of 2017 allow the appeal and to convict the accused for the charges levelled against him. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent- accused submits that the judgment under this appeal does not suffers from any perversity or illegality, since the learned Magistrate after meticulously examining the evidence and documents on record, passed the well reasoned judgement, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He contended, though the accident in question was not disputed by the accused, however the said accident caused due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased. According to him, on perusal of the spot sketch-Ex.P.6, the same reveals that the accused was driving his Car on the left side of the road with the utmost care, at that time, the deceased all of sudden crossed the highway road from service road towards Mascalmakki and dashed the Car of the accused, as a result the accident has taken place. In such circumstances, the offences punishable under Sections 279 or 338 of IPC do not attract against the accused. He further contended that there are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9042 CRL.A No. 100203 of 2017 to 3; they have not stated that the accused was driving his Car in a rash and negligent manner. In such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the accused. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. Having heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and learned counsel for respondent- accused and perused the evidence and documents available on record, the sole point that arises for my consideration is; “Whether the learned Magistrate is justified in acquitting the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC?” 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, so also carefully perused the evidence and documents available on record. It could be gathered from records, the accident in question was occurred in National Highway-206 near Mascalmakki. On a careful perusal of the sketch–Ex.P.6, the same reveals that the Car drove by the accused was on the right side of the road i.e., as per the lane system coming from - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9042 CRL.A No. 100203 of 2017 Gerusoppa towards Honavara. At that time all of a sudden the deceased made an attempt to cross the Highway road from the service road towards MascalmakkiThe motorcycle ridden by the deceased crossed the road from Mascalmakki cross towards the Highway. As such, it could be gathered from records, the deceased crossed the Highway all of a sudden. In such circumstances, naturally the driver of the Car was unable to see the movement of the motorcycle. Admittedly, there was a head on collusion between the Car and the motorcycle, this aspect of the matter was stated by the accused in his 313 statement marked at Ex.D.1. 10. Further, on perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3- the eye-witnesses and injured witness, all these witnesses have only stated that the Car was in a high speed, but none of them have stated that the driver of the Car was driving the Car in a rash and negligent manner. Such being the position, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Satish1 held as under; “4. Merely because the truck was being driven at a “high speed” does not bespeak 1 AIR ONLINE 1996 SC 95 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9042 CRL.A No. 100203 of 2017 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.” 11. As per the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, mere driving of the vehicle in a high speed itself does not amount to rash and negligent driving and the said act does not - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9042 CRL.A No. 100203 of 2017 come within the purview of the Section 279 or 338 of IPC. Hence, by applying the above position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, in such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the accused for the charges levelled against him. 12. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that interference with the impugned judgement does not call for. Accordingly, I answer the point raised above in the ‘affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal filed by the State is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PJ/ CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 5