- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15060 CRL.A No. 999 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 999 OF 2018 (A) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HONNALI POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 01. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP) AND: CHANDRAPPA S/O TIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, DRIVER, D.A.R. POLICE VAN BEARING REG NO.KA.17/G 85, AHC-32, R/O D.A.R.QUARTERS, DAVANAGERE - 577 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MANOJ H C., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1)(3) CR.P.C BY THE S.P.P FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15060 CRL.A No. 999 of 2018 (a) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 23.10.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN S.C.NO.2/2015 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 279 AND 304 OF IPC. (b) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 23.10.2017, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN S.C.NO.2/2015 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279 & 304 OF IPC. AND (c) CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE ACCUSED – RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABEL UNDER SECTIONS 279 & 304 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The State is in appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.10.2017 passed in S.C. No.2 of 2015 on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Davanagere, by which the accused who was alleged of commission of offences under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15060 CRL.A No. 999 of 2018 Section 279 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) has been acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, accused is the driver of police van bearing registration No.KA-17/G- 85. That on 08.08.2014, the deceased M.S.Anjaneya, CW-1/N.G.Hanumanthappa, CW-19/T.Tippeswamy, CW-20/G.Praveen, CW-21/M.Askar Ali, CW- 22/H.Nagappa @ Naganna were on bundobusth duty at Yarechikkanahalli Village, Honnali Taluk. That on 02.09.2014, the accused, being the driver of the said police van, had consumed alcohol in the afternoon itself and though the deceased M.S.Anjaneya had advised him not to consume alcohol, he had turned deaf ears to the said advice. On the said day, CW- 30/PSI directed the accused and CWs-1, 19 to 22 including the deceased Anjaneya to go to bundobusth duty from Yarechikkanhalli village to Kundur and Honnali town on the eve of Ganesha visarjana (immersion) programme. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15060 CRL.A No. 999 of 2018 3. Accordingly, the accused and other police staff went to Kundur, and after completion of bundobusth duty, they were returning to Honnali town in order to go to the Inspection Bungalow. That, at about 11.00 p.m., the accused under the influence of alcohol drove the vehicle, having full knowledge that the driving of the vehicle under intoxication is dangerous not only for the vehicle but also to the staff and the public at large, drove the van from the T.B.Circle, Honnali towards Inspection Bungalow in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the van against the compound and the gate of Inspection Bungalow causing the accident. In the accident, the front portion of the vehicle was damaged and its glasses were broken. M.S.Anjaneya, who was sitting beside the driver in the said van, suffered grievous injuries on his chest, stomach and other parts of the body and succumbed to the same at the spot. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15060 CRL.A No. 999 of 2018 4. Based on the complaint filed by one Hanumantappa, APC, DAR Unit, Davanagere, the case came to be registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304 of IPC and the investigation was conducted. A charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304 and 337 of IPC. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, he was put on trial. 5. The prosecution examined in all 15 witnesses as PWs-1 to 15 and exhibited 28 documents as Exs.P-1 to 28. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”). However, he has not led any defence evidence. 6. The Trial Court framed the following points for its consideration: (i) “Whether the prosecution proves its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 02.09.2014 the accused being driver of the D.A.R. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15060 CRL.A No. 999 of 2018 Police van bearing Reg.No. KA 17 G 85 was driving said vehicle alongwith other police staff after completing the bundobusth duty in view of Ganesh immersion Procession at Honnali town, and accused was under intoxication, and at about 11.00 p.m. inspite of advise of the H.C. deceased M.S. Anjayana, and at about the accused drove the van from Honnali T.B. Circle towards I.B. in a rash and negligent manner, and in high speed and dashed against the main gate of the I.B. compound and caused accident, and thereby committed an offence punishable under sec. 279 of IPC? (ii) Whether the prosecution further proves it case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused drove the D.A.R. police van from Honnali T.B. circle towards I.B. in rash and negligent manner, and in high speed, knowing fully well that it may cause accident, and dashed the van against the main gate of the I.B. compound and caused an accident, and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15060 CRL.A No. 999 of 2018 in the said accident the van got damaged, also one M.S. Anjaneya H.C. who was sitting to the left side of the driver seat of the said van suffered grievous injuries on his chest, stomach, and lips and died at the spot, and thus the accused has caused the death of the deceased, and thereby committed an offence punishable under sec.304 of IPC? (iii) Whether the prosecution further proves its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the above said date, time and place, the accused being driver of the DAR police van drove the same form T.B. circle Honnali towards the I.B., in a rash and negligent manner under intoxication of alcohol, and dashed the Van against the main gate of the I.B. compound and caused accident and in the said accident the accused himself sustained simple injuries, and thereby committed an offence punishable under sec.337 of IPC? (iv) What order?” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15060 CRL.A No. 999 of 2018 7. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Trial Court has answered point Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and consequently, passed the impugned order acquitting the accused of the offences alleged. 8. On being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the state ahs preferred the present appeal. 9. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the State, taking this Court to the records, submits that the accused himself being the employee of the Police Department, was required to observe and follow strict rules and discipline, including not consuming any substance of intoxication. He has deliberately consumed alcohol on the said day and has caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving. That the witnesses PWs-2 and 3 have spoken about they having seen the accident as they were travelling along with the accused and the deceased in the same vehicle. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15060 CRL.A No. 999 of 2018 10. In addition, the independent witness has also been examined. The medical evidence and the FSL report has also been produced as per Ex.P-19, and Ex.P-18, which indicates the blood samples of the accused contained alcohol. That, PW-8 / the doctor has been examined, who has supported the case of the prosecution. 11. Thus, he submits that the prosecution has brought on record the evidence beyond reasonable doubt to bring home the guilt of the accused. The Trial Court, without appreciating these aspects of the matter, has proceeded to acquit the accused on presumptions and surmises, warranting interference at the hands of this Court. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records. 13. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15060 CRL.A No. 999 of 2018 "Whether the Trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304 of IPC?” 14. The eye-witness to the incident is the complainant PW2. The said witness has deposed that the accused was consuming Brandy since afternoon on 02.09.2014 and that the deceased Anjaneya had advised him not to consume Brandy. 15. The Trial Court has noted that during the evidence, PW2 has not stated about the accused drinking Brandy since afternoon, despite he being advised to the contrary by the deceased Anjaneya. That he has deposed before the Court only to the extent that the accused was under intoxication since afternoon. 16. The Trial Court has taken note of the fact that if the accused was under intoxication, which was known to the other police constables who accompanied him during the bundobusth duty, they would have - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15060 CRL.A No. 999 of 2018 definitely informed about his conduct to the higher ups and would have prevented him from driving the vehicle. Therefore, the Trial Court has found the testimony of PW2 to be unreliable, as he himself was aware, according to him, that the accused was under intoxication. 17. As regards the allegation of accused driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the Trial Court has taken note of the fact that in the cross- examination, PW2 has admitted that he was sitting behind the driver and there was a wooden plank between the driver's seat and the place where he was sitting and the people sitting behind could not see through the driver and that he noticed the accident and the damage caused to the vehicle only after getting out of the vehicle. Therefore, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the evidence of PW2, that he witnessed the accused driving the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15060 CRL.A No. 999 of 2018 vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as untenable. 18. The Trial Court has also taken note of the fact that PW2 during his cross-examination has admitted that on the very same day, he along with the accused and others had been to Kundur Village for Ganesha idol immersion procession where many vehicles had assembled and at that time, several processions were also taken. When the accused drove the vehicle amidst those many vehicles and close to 2,500 people who had assembled, and there were about 20 police officials who were deployed on bundobusth duty, and the said witness has also admitted that the vehicle driven by the accused had gone between those thousands of people at Honnali town during the Ganesha immersion processions and there was no any incident resulting out of any rash and negligent driving by the accused under intoxication. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15060 CRL.A No. 999 of 2018 19. The Trial Court has thus found that if the accused was indeed under intoxication and was driving a vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, he would have dashed any of the vehicles or any of the persons in the procession. Therefore, the Trial Court has disbelieved the version of PW2, of accused being under intoxication with alcohol and causing the accident due to his rash and negligence driving. 20. The Trial Court has also taken note of the fact that there are certain over-writings, insertions and corrections in the FIR. That the incident had taken place at 11.00 p.m. on 02.09.2014 and though the case was registered at about 12.30 in the midnight, the FIR was sent to the Court at about 11.00 a.m. on the next day, i.e., after 11 hours of delay. The Trial Court has also noted the alterations made in the complaint, including the names of the police and their numbers were corrected and/or added. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15060 CRL.A No. 999 of 2018 21. The Trial Court has found this conduct to be doubtful, particularly when the FIR and the complaint was registered by the Police Constables themselves without there being any explanation for the delay. 22. The other witness examined is PW9, who is also stated to be an eye-witness by the prosecution. The said witnesses, as noted by the Trial Court, admitted that whatever deposed by him in the chief- examination was not stated to the Police earlier. The Trial Court has taken note of the fact that the deposition of PW9 indicates, he was not anywhere close to the place of incident at the time of the accident. The Trial Court has extracted his deposition at paragraph 23 of the judgment. 23. PW3 is another Police Constable, who claims to have accompanied the complainant and the Police Constables on bundobusth duty. The Trial Court has disbelieved his testimony, as he has deposed to have - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15060 CRL.A No. 999 of 2018 been acquainted with the accused for over 12 years and the accused was an experienced driver. The said witness has also admitted that since from the bundobusth duty for 25 days, the said witness was with the accused on the bundobusth duty. 24. That, he has also admitted that the accused and himself were on duty at Kundur Village, and while attending Ganesha immersion processions, their vehicle was going behind the procession which was surrounded by thousands of people. The said witness has admitted that at about 09.15 p.m., they came to attend the Ganesha immersion in Honnali where PSI, CPI and other officials were present. 25. The said witness has also admitted that the liquor shop was closed during Ganesha immersion procession, in view of the order of the District Collector. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15060 CRL.A No. 999 of 2018 26. The said witness has also admitted that about 1000 to 1500 people had gathered in the Ganesh immersion programme at Honnanli town. The said witness has further admitted that they were in Kundur at Honnali on bundobusth duty and the vehicle was driven by the accused and other police officials were present. The witness also admitted that besides the driver's seat, there was only one seat and only one person could sit and all the staff were sitting behind and the person who was sitting behind could not see the driver. 27. Thus, based on the said version, the Trial Court has found it improbable that PW3 could have seen the accident. The Trial Court has extracted the deposition of PW3 in paragraph 26, where the said witness has admitted that he has not seen the accident by himself. That he has also admitted, without seeing the accident, it was not possible to say whose mistake was it. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15060 CRL.A No. 999 of 2018 28. The Trial Court has thereafter appreciated the evidence of PW5 who is a seizure mahazar witness, in whose presence, according to the prosecution, the sample blood of the accused was taken and collected by the doctor under Exhibit P15 and was sent for Forensic Science Laboratory. The said witness in the cross-examination has admitted that he is a social worker and the head of the village. He has also admitted that the no chit containing his signature was affixed on the bottle containing the blood sample of the accused to show that the blood was seized in his presence. The Trial Court has therefore found that the testimony of the said witness is of no consequences. 29. PW8 is the doctor who has examined the accused and also conducted the test on the sample blood and issued the report as per Exhibit P19 and the FSL report is marked as per Exhibit P18. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15060 CRL.A No. 999 of 2018 30. The said witness in the cross-examination has admitted that the bottle containing the sample blood did not bear the signature of any pancha witnesses. He has also admitted that he has not mentioned in his report as to how the blood was collected and how the same was preserved. 31. Thus, based on the said evidence, the Trial Court has found the deposition of PW5, the pancha witness and the deposition of PW8 of collecting the blood sample to be doubtful and has found that there was a possibility of blood sample being changed or mis-sent and the report issued by PW8 was thus not reliable. 32. The Trial Court has also adverted to the evidence of PW10 who is the scientific officer of RFSL who in his deposition has stated that he had drawn 5 ml of blood from the body of the accused, whereas according to PW8, the bottle contained 20 ml of blood. With this discrepancy, the Trial Court has - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15060 CRL.A No. 999 of 2018 found to have created serious doubt about the very collection of the sample blood. 33. Thus, finding these errors and loopholes in the story of the prosecution, the Trial Court has disbelieved the case of the prosecution resulting in acquittal of the accused. 34. The settled position of law1 is that the Court dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal, has to be more cautious, bearing in mind that there is a double presumption in favour of the accused of his innocence and he having secured his acquittal, the presumption of innocence is further reinforced. That there shall be a substantial compelling reasons and very strong circumstances requiring reversal of the order of acquittal. 35. This Court, on perusal of the entire record, do not see the existence of any such circumstances 1 Jafaruddeen and others vs. The State of Kerala – (2022) 8 SCC 446. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15060 CRL.A No. 999 of 2018 warranting interference and reversal of the order of acquittal one into conviction. The point for consideration is answered accordingly. 36. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32