State Of Karnataka By vs Satisha S B
2022 Latest Caselaw 11753 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 12 T H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                        BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1545 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

State of Karnataka b y
Yelawara Police
Mysuru
Represented by
State Pub lic Prosecutor
O/o. Hig h Court Building
Beng aluru-560 001.
                                            ...Appellant
(By Sri K. Nag eshwarapp a, HCGP)

AND:

Satisha S.B.
S/o Boranayaka
Aged about 43 years
R/at Sag arakatte
S.Hemmanahalli
Yelawala Hobli
Mysuru Taluk
Mysuru District-570001.
                                          ...Respondent
     This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
378(1)(3) of Cr.P.C. praying to grant leave to appeal
against the judgment and ord er of acquittal dated
25.09.2019 in C.C. No.190/2016 passed by the court
of the II JMFC, Mysuru acquitting accused/respondent
for the offence p unishab le und er Section 279, 304(A)
of IPC and etc,.

     This Criminal Appeal coming on for orders this
day, the Court delivered the following:
                                  :: 2 ::


                               JUDGMENT

This is an appeal preferred by the State

challenging the judgment of acquittal of the

respondent in C.C.No.190/2016 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate First Class (II Court), Mysuru.

The State has filed I.A.1/2020 for condoning delay

of 37 days. I do not think that there is a case for

issuing notice to respondent on I.A.1/2020

because the appeal is devoid of merits.

2. In relation to a road traffic accident that

took place on 18.11.2015, when one

Jayaramegowda was returning to his house, the

driver of Maruti Omni Van bearing registration

No.KA 05 N 7223 dashed him. As a result,

Jayaramegowda succumbed to injuries at the

hospital. Therefore at the instance of son of the

deceased, initially FIR came to be registered in

Cr.No.169/2015 for the offences punishable under

sections 279 and 337 IPC. After death of the :: 3 ::

injured, the offence under section 304(A) IPC was

included in the FIR. Investigation followed filing

of the charge sheet.

3. During trial, the prosecution examined only

two witnesses viz., Ravi - PW.1 and Ganesh J.H. -

PW.2 and produced documents as per Ex.P.1 to

P.12. PW.1 is the son of the deceased. He is not

an eye witness. PW.2 was the investigating officer

and he too did not have first hand information of

the incident. He deposed only on the basis of the

investigation. In the charge sheet, CW.2,3 and 4,

Somashekara, Subego and Siddaraju respectively,

were cited as eye witnesses, but none of them was

examined. No reason is forthcoming for not

examining the eye witnesses. The trial court did

not believe the evidence of PW.1 and 2 and

therefore acquitted the respondent.

4. In the circumstances that the eye

witnesses were not examined by the prosecution, I :: 4 ::

do not find any infirmity in not placing reliance on

evidence of PW.1 and 2. If the case is based on

circumstantial evidence, the testimony of the

investigating officer can be acted upon, but when

there are eye witnesses, prosecution must

examine one of them at least. If for any reason

eye witness cannot be examined, the prosecution

must have explanation for that and it can rely on

other evidence which should be cogent and

convincing. Nothing of this sort is available here.

I do not find any infirmity in the acquittal

judgment. Therefore when the appeal is not worth

admission, consideration of I.A.1/2020 does not

arise. Consequently I.A.1/2020 is dismissed and

appeal is also dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sd