- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29237 CRL.A No. 1226 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1226 OF 2020 (A) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SUKKARAYAPATNA POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)) AND: ANNAPPA S/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, NANDIBATTALU, NANDIHOSALLI LINGADAHALLI, TARIKERE TALUK-577 228 …RESPONDENT (VIDE ORDER DTD.04.04.2025 SRI. KUMARASWAMY B.N, AMICUS CURIAE) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(1)(3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.11.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR IN C.C.NO.1069/2014, THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT-ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279 AND 304A OF IPC. Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29237 CRL.A No. 1226 of 2020 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT The State of Karnataka represented by Sakkarayapatna police through State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 30.11.2019 passed in C.C.No.1069/2014 by the II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Kadur. 2. The brief and relevant facts leading upto this appeal are as under: That the accused/respondent was charge sheeted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kaduru for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act alleging, that on 10.03.2014 at 9.15 p.m., the accused herein, being the rider of the motorbike bearing registration No.KA-18-V- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29237 CRL.A No. 1226 of 2020 2471 was driving the motorbike from chikkamangaluru side in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and when he came near Ekkamma Devarakatte, he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to another motorbike coming from the opposite direction bearing registration No. KA-18-V-1543 driven by one, Devendrappa, being the father-in-law of PW1 - complainant. In the said accident, the said Devendrappa sustained injuries on his person and both the vehicles were damaged. Immediately, the complainant and his friend, who were moving on the road at that time shifted the injured Devendrappa to District Mallegowda Hospital and it is noticed that, the doctor declared him as dead. With these allegations, a complaint came to be filed, which was registered by the police and a criminal law was set in motion. 3. On completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Accused appeared before the trial Court and was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29237 CRL.A No. 1226 of 2020 enlarged on bail. The substance of acquisition were framed read over and explained to the accused persons for which, he pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. 4. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, in all prosecution examined 4 witnesses from PW1 to PW4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 and closed the prosecution evidence. Thereafter, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C so as to enable him to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. He denied his complicity in the crime and did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. To rebut the evidence lead by the prosecution, accused himself entered the witness box as DW1 and none of the documents were marked on behalf of the defence. 5. The learned trial Magistrate, on hearing the arguments and evaluation of the evidence, found the accused not guilty for the offences under Section 279 and 304 (A) of IPC, but however, found guilty of the accused - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29237 CRL.A No. 1226 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 181, and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and sentenced him as under: "zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÀiÁ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 225 (1)gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÉÆÃð£ÀÄäR£ÁV, DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DvÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÝ ºÉÆj¹zÀ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.279, 304(J)gÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ½UÁV ¤gÀ¥ÀgÁ¢ü JAzÀÄ ¤tð¬Ä¸À¯ÁVzÉ. zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÀiÁ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 225 (2gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÉÆÃð£ÀÄäR£ÁV, DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DvÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÝ ºÉÆj¹zÀ ªÉÆÃlgï ªÁºÀ£À PÁ¬ÄzÉ PÀ®A 181 ºÁUÀÆ 196 gÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ½UÁV C¥ÀgÁ¢ü JAzÀÄ ¤tð¬Ä¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ ªÉÆÃlgï ªÁºÀ£À PÁ¬ÄzÉ 1988 gÀ PÀ®A.181 gÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀPÁÌV C¥ÀgÁ¢üUÉ gÀÆ.500-00 zÀAqÀªÀ£ÀÄß «¢ü¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. zÀAqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä «¥sÀ®£ÁzÀ°è DgÉÆæUÉ 05 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀeÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¢ü¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ ªÉÆÃlgï ªÁºÀ£À PÁ¬ÄzÉ PÀ®A.196 gÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀPÁÌV C¥ÀgÁ¢üUÉ gÀÆ.1,000-00 zÀAqÀªÀ£ÀÄß «¢ü¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. zÀAqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä «¥sÀ®£ÁzÀ°è DgÉÆæUÉ 10 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀeÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¢ü¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀeÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ KPÀPÁ®zÀ°è C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À eÁ«Ä£ÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ zÀA.¥Àæ.¸ÀA. PÀ®A 437(J)gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è §gÉzÀÄPÉÆlÖAvÀºÀ eÁ«Ä£ÀÄ ªÀÄÄZÀѽPÉUÀ¼ÀÄ F wÃ¥ÀÄð GzÉÆáö¹zÀ ¢£À¢AzÀ 6 wAUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÉ ZÁ°ÛAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ªÉÄîä£À« ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀÆZÀ£É §gÀzÉà EzÀÝ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj eÁ«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄÄZÀѽPÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀéAiÀÄAZÁ°vÀªÁV gÀzÁÝUÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. F wæð£À ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DgÉÆævÀ¤UÉ GavÀªÁV ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVzÉ." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29237 CRL.A No. 1226 of 2020 6. Now being aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused for the aforesaid offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC, the State is in appeal. 7. Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned S.P.P, in addition to narrating the facts of the case submits that, the trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused for the aforesaid offences. PW1 was an eyewitness to the said incident and he has categorically stated with regard to the witnessing the said incident. So also PW2 is also an eyewitness and he has spoken on par with the evidence of PW1. 8. She submits that, on perusal of the evidence of these witnesses, the accused has not denied about the said accident and he was rider of the motorbike at the relevant time, but this fact is not properly appreciated by the prosecution. Even the accused has given consent to mark certain documents at Exs. 7, 8 and 10. When the accused admits the accident, then it goes without saying - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29237 CRL.A No. 1226 of 2020 that because of his rash and negligent driving only, the said accident has taken place and she submits that Devendrappa - the rider of the motorbike, who was coming from the opposite direction sustained a grievous injuries on his person. She also narrates the grounds urged in the appeal memo and submits that, this appeal be allowed. 9. In this case though the notice is served upon the accused, he remained absent. Therefore, Sri. Kumaraswamy B.N., learned counsel is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. 10. Learned Amicus Curiae would submit that, the trial Court has categorically observed during the course of judgment that, there is no rash and negligent riding of the motorbike by the accused in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Though PW1 and PW2 were arrayed as eyewitnesses and PW1 is the complainant but the said incident has taken place at 09.15 p.m. in the night hours - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29237 CRL.A No. 1226 of 2020 and these PW1 and PW2 were about 25 feet away from the place of accident. During night hours, it was not at all possible for these PW1 and PW2 to see that, how accused was riding his motorbike. Their evidence is quite inconsistent with regard to the rash and negligent riding of the motorbike by the accused. Therefore, he submits that the trial Court relying upon the evidence and properly appreciating the same, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the appeal by upholding the judgment of acquittal of the accused-respondent for the aforesaid offences. 11. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of both the sides. Meticulously perused the records. The only point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court requires interference by this Court?" - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29237 CRL.A No. 1226 of 2020 12. The law with regard to the interference with the judgment of acquittal is very much clear. The Appellate Court cannot lightly interfere into the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. However, the State has come up in this appeal, re-appreciation of evidence is also quite necessary. It is the allegation of the prosecution that, because of the rash and negligent riding of his motorbike bearing No. KA-18-V-2471 by the accused, the said accident has taken place. The prosecution is under obligation to prove the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the accused. Unless the rash and negligent driving is proved, the offence is not complete. 13. To prove the said fact, prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW1 and PW2 - the main witnesses. Though PW1 and PW2 reiterates their own statement before the police during the course of their evidence, they state that, on 10.03.2014 at about 09.15 p.m., PW1 and PW2 were moving by walk near Yakkama Temple on K.M. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29237 CRL.A No. 1226 of 2020 Road near Sakkarayapatna. At that time, they state that Devendrappa, the deceased was moving on his motorbike bearing No.KA-18-V-1543 from Chikkamangaluru to Sakkarayapatna on the left side of the road. They say that, at that time, from Sakkarayapatna towards Chikkamangaluru, a motorbike ridden by the accused came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Devendrappa. Because of this, Devendrappa sustained injuries and he was declared dead when he was taken to the hospital by them. This PW1 was cross-examined by the defence. It is stated in the cross- examination that, the road leading towards Chikkamangaluru to Sakkarayapatna is a slope road and there exists a curve towards Ayyanakere. According to his evidence, he saw the accident from a distance of 25 to 30 feet. He did not notice that, any other local people gathered at the scene of offence, when the said accident took place. According to him, when the accident took place, he was moving from Sakkarayapatna towards - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29237 CRL.A No. 1226 of 2020 Matadha Gate. The deceased fell on the left side of the road towards his western side and accused fell on the right side of the road. So this evidence of PW1, if perused and scrupulously scrutinized, when deceased fell on the western side of the road and when accused fell on the right side of the road, how the said accident took place is not at all stated by him as rightly observed by trial Court. 14. To buttress this evidence of PW1, PW2 was examined by the prosecution. He too states in his evidence that, the scene of offence is not a busy locality. He cannot say what was a cloth being worn by the deceased and accused at the time of incident. There is no road divider at the scene of offence. He states that, on the either side of the road there exists an 8 feet wide kaccha road. From a distance of 50 to 60 feet from the scene of offence, there exists a bridge. Himself and PW1 were moving towards the Kalmarudi matha at that time. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29237 CRL.A No. 1226 of 2020 15. On perusal of the evidence of PW2 also, he has not stated that, how the accused was riding the motorbike before the accident. There is no proper evidence that these PW1 and PW2 could witness the said accident in the manner stated by them before the police while recording their statement. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 and PW2, though they are branded as eyewitnesses to the said incident of accident, would not inspire any confidence in the mind of the Court that, they have spoken truth before the Court that, they have really witnessed the said incident in a manner stated in their statements before the police. 16. PW3 is the Investigating Officer in this case and according to him at on 11.03.2014 at about 08.30 a.m., PW1 came to the police and lodged a complaint with regard to the said accident. Based upon that, he registered the crime in Crime No. 57/2014 and set the criminal law in motion. Thereafter, he went to the hospital for conducting the inquest panchanama on the dead body. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29237 CRL.A No. 1226 of 2020 Recorded the statement of the witnesses, such as CW4 to CW6 and in the presence of CW2 and CW3 he has conducted a spot panchanama and prepared the sketch. 17. This PW3 was cross-examined by the defence. He admits that, at the scene of offence on either side of the road, there exists a 10 feet kaccha road and towards Chikkamangaluru side on the right side there exists a road leading to Ayyanakere. He further states that, towards Kadur from Chikkamangaluru side, there exists a hilly road with curves. If that is so, whether these PW1 and PW2 have really witnessed a said incident in such an area is not stated by these PW1 and PW2. That means evidence of PW1 and PW2 is quite inconsistent with regard to the situation of the road at the scene of offence. PW4 has filed a charge sheet. He has obtained documents and these documents are not disputed by the defence. 18. The accused has entered the witness box and states that, on 10.03.2014 when he was moving towards - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29237 CRL.A No. 1226 of 2020 Chikkamangaluru from Kadur side, Devendrappa - the diseased was coming from Chikkamangaluru towards Kadur. He was moving on the left side of the road slowly. At that time, he noticed the coming of a lorry from the opposite direction and because of seeing the lorry and its headlight, deceased Devendrappa scared himself and directly came towards the right side of the road and dashed to his motorbike. Because of that, the said accident has taken place. He also fell down and lost his consciousness. The said accident has taken place at about 09.30 p.m. Nobody was there at the scene of offence when the said accident took place. He states that, when he went to police station to lodge a complaint, police did not take his complaint. Thus, he states that, there is no nexus between himself and his driving with that of the death of the deceased in the said accident. He has been thoroughly cross-examined by the prosecution. Nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of this witness so as to disbelieve his version. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29237 CRL.A No. 1226 of 2020 19. In case of accident, the rider and the drivers are the best persons to speak about the nature of the accident which has taken place. By giving evidence, this accused has given clear evidence that this deceased himself on seeing the headlight of a lorry scared himself which was coming from the opposite direction and came towards the right side of the road and dashed to his motorbike. This evidence of accused DW1 is not rebutted by the prosecution with legal evidence. It is not denied by the prosecution also. So far as other documents are concerned, defence is not disputing the same. Amongst them, Ex. P7 is the inquest panchanama. Ex. P8 is the P.M. report. These two documents show that, deceased Devendrappa died because of accidental injuries. It is also not in dispute that, the said accident has taken place not because of any mechanical defects. Ex. P10 is the wound certificate of the accused. Ex. P12 shows where exactly the said accident has taken place. Thus, though most of the documents are admitted by the defence, but the very - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29237 CRL.A No. 1226 of 2020 rash and negligent riding of the motorbike by the accused in the manner alleged by the prosecution is not proved in accordance law. 20. It is the settled principle of law that to constitute an offence under Section 304(A) of IPC, the negligence so alleged against the accused must be a gross in nature and to fasten the liability, the prosecution is under obligation to establish that, it was accused and accused alone, who was responsible for the said accident and death must be the proximate cause of rash and negligent driving. But in this case, such an ingredient so defined under the provisions of Indian Penal Code is not proved by the prosecution. Though PW1 and PW2 are branded as eyewitnesses to this incident, but looking to their deposition, they speak only with regard to speed, but they were going towards the Matadha Kere and how they witnessed the said accident is not properly stated by these two witnesses. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29237 CRL.A No. 1226 of 2020 motorbike by the accused, it cannot be stated that the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 21. On re-assessment of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, I do not find any factual or legal error committed by the trial Court in coming to the conclusion that the said offences are not duly proved in accordance with law. Even on re-assessment of the evidence and on its re-appreciation, one cannot come to a different conclusion than the conclusion was arrived at by the prosecution. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this appeal and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. The accused was found guilty of the offences under Sections 181 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the accused has not preferred an appeal on the same, perhaps conceding the commission of the said offences. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29237 CRL.A No. 1226 of 2020 22. Resultantly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgment of acquittal dated 30.11.2019 passed in C.C.No.1069/2014 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur is confirmed. (iii) Amicus Curiae's fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court, Bengaluru and send the copy of this judgment to the High Court Legal Services Committee for refund and action. (iv) Send back the trial Court records along with copy of this judgment forthwith. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33