- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5924 CRL.A No. 2177 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2177 OF 2017 (A) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BIRUR POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP) AND: GANESH UPENDRA NAIK S/O UPENDRA H. NAIK, DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA.31/F-1327, R/O URUKERI VILLAGE, KUMTA TALUK, UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT-581343. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) & (3) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 25.09.2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KADUR IN C.C.NO.116/2015 THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279, 338 AND 304(A) OF IPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5924 CRL.A No. 2177 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur in CC No. 116/2015 dated 25.09.2017. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the CPI, Birur Circle has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC. 4. It is alleged by the prosecution that, on 18.02.2015 at about 02.45 a.m. on Birur-Kadur road of 206 N.H. near Pearls Club, within the jurisdiction of the Birur Police Station, the accused being the driver of KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-31/F-1327 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and when proceeding so, dashed to the oncoming motorcycle bearing registration - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5924 CRL.A No. 2177 of 2017 No.KA-18/J-4674, on which one Gangadharappa and CW2 were proceeding, as a result of which said Gangadharappa sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. Thus, the accused has committed the alleged offences. 5. After filing the charge-sheet, case was registered in CC No.116/2015. In pursuance of summons, the accused appeared before the trial Court and substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 7 witnesses as PW1 to PW7 and 13 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P13. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5924 CRL.A No. 2177 of 2017 7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial court has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. 8. Smt.Anitha.N.Girish, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit the argument that the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below is illegal, invalid and contrary to law, evidence and material on record. The trial judge has failed to properly appreciate the evidence and material on record. The PW1 has clearly stated as to the act of the accused. The trial court has failed to see that the accused has not offered any explanation with regard to the manner in which the accident had occurred. The case of the prosecution is established by the evidence of PW1 and mahazar witnesses. Same is not considered by the trial Court. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow this appeal. 9. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that, PW1 is the eye-witness who - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5924 CRL.A No. 2177 of 2017 has deposed in his evidence that the driver of the bus drove the same in a high speed. Except this evidence, he has not deposed as to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. The trial court has properly appreciated the materials on record in accordance with law and facts and sought for dismissal of this appeal. 10. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of materials placed before this Court, the following points would arise for my consideration: (1) Whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the offence under Sections 273, 338 and 304APC? (2) What order? My answer to the above points as under: Point No.(1): Affirmative Point No.(2): As per final order. Regarding Point No.1 11. Before appreciation of evidence on record, it is necessary to mention as to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of CONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5924 CRL.A No. 2177 of 2017 SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND reported in (2025)5 SCC 433; BABU SAHEBGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2024)8 SCC 149; CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2007)4 SCC 415; and H.D. SUNDARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2023)9 SCC 581. In the case of H D SUNDARA (supra), the Apex Court has summarized the principles governing exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against judgment of acquittal under section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure as under: “8. …8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5924 CRL.A No. 2177 of 2017 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 12. In the case of BABU SAHEBGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS (supra) it is observed that it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles. The same are: 1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; 2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5924 CRL.A No. 2177 of 2017 3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 13. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 18.02.2015 at around 02.45 pm, on Birur-Kadur road of 206 NH near Pearls Club, within the jurisdiction of Birur police station, the accused being the driver of KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA.31/F-1327, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life, and while proceeding so, dashed to the oncoming motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA.18/J-4674 in which one Gangadharappa and CW2 were proceeding. As a result of which, Gangadharappa sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. Thus, the accused has committed the alleged offence. 14. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses as PWs.1 to 7 and thirteen documents were marked as Exhibits P1 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5924 CRL.A No. 2177 of 2017 to P13. Ex.P3 is the complaint filed by one Rajesh-PW2, who is none other than the son of the deceased- Gangadharappa. He is not an eye witness to this incident. On the basis of the complaint, case was registered against the accused. PW1-V S Manjappa, has deposed in his evidence that he is one of the eye-witnesses and also injured in this case. He has deposed in his evidence that about an year ago, one day at 02.30 pm, while he and deceased Gangadharappa were proceeding on a CD-100 motorcycle from Kadur to Birur near Club on the left side of the road, one KSRTC bus came from the opposite side in a high speed and dashed against the bike. As a result, he sustained injuries on his head and shoulder. The rider of the bike Gangadarappa died on the spot sustaining grievous injuries all over his body. Then, he was shifted to Kadur Government Hospital. The accident took place due to fault of the accused, who is KSRTC bus driver. Thereafter, he came to know the name of the accused as Ganesha Upendra Naik. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5924 CRL.A No. 2177 of 2017 15. PW2-Rajesha D G, the Complainant and hear-say witness, has deposed as to the contents of the complaint Exhibit P1. 16. PW3-Mallikarjuna, the bus Conductor, who was in the offending vehicle, has not supported the case of the prosecution. 17. PW4-B S Ravikumar and PW5-G Ganesh Murthy are said to be attested to the mahazar, have deposed as to their evidence regarding the spot mahazar conducted by the Police as per Exhibit P5. 18. PW6-M Somashekar and PW7-G S Vishwanath, the police officials, have deposed as to their respective investigation. PW1 has not deposed any evidence as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. 19. The trial Court has observed in Para Nos.15 and 16 of its judgment as under: "15. P.W.1 is the material eye witness and he has been cross-examined by defence counsel. It is worth - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5924 CRL.A No. 2177 of 2017 to mention here that, the accused has taken a specific stand that deceased Gangadharappa had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and to corroborate this fact, the prosecution in its charge sheet has categorically mentioned that deceased Gangadharappa had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. The learned counsel for the defence has put forth the suggestion to P.W.1 that the accident was happened due to the negligent riding by deceased Gangadharappa. So, on perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with charge sheet filed by Birur police, it is probablised that deceased Gangadharappa was not possessing any driving licence, so he might have driven his motor cycle negligently and caused the accident. So the evidence of P.W.1 does not helpful to the case of prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of accused. As already stated above, P.W.2 is a hear say witness and he has not witnessed the accident directly. So his evidence also not helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. 16. Now, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, 2, 6 and 7 to prove the guilt of accused. As stated supra, this is a case registered against the accused for the offences punishable U/s 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC and in a case of present nature, it is obligatory on the part of prosecution to prove that the accident was occurred on account of the negligent driving by accused. But in the instant case, the complainant, who is none other than the son of deceased - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5924 CRL.A No. 2177 of 2017 Gangadharappa, has spoken about the rash and negligent driving of accused, but, admittedly, he was not an eye witness to the incident. The another witness deposed before this court and spoken about the rash and negligent driving of accused is the pillion rider of deceased Gangadharappa who also sustained injuries in the accident but his evidence do not inspire the confidence of court that the accused has caused the accident due to his rash and negligent driving. It is pertinent to note that the conductor of the bus i.e. P.W.3 has turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Only P.W.1 and 2 supported the case of prosecution. Though the material witnesses have supported the case of prosecution but their evidence do not inspire the confidence of the court. So, only on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and 2, it is hardly possible to convict the accused. Admittedly, the offending bus was carrying large number of passengers, but none of the passengers have been cited as witnesses to the prosecution case and the prosecution has failed to examine those passengers before this court to bring home the guilt of accused. Hence, it is opined that the accused is entitled for acquittal and accordingly, this court proceed to answer the aforesaid point for consideration in the negative." 20. On careful re-examination, re-appreciation and re-consideration of the entire evidence on record, I do not find any legal or factual error in the judgment of acquittal - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5924 CRL.A No. 2177 of 2017 passed by the trial Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions, I proceed to answer point No.1 in affirmative. Regarding Point No.2 21. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE KBM,DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51