Karnataka High Court
The State By vs Sudarshan P on 29 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29788
CRL.A No. 993 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 993 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
THE STATE BY
H.D. KOTE POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP)
AND:
SUDARSHAN P.
S/O CHANDREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
RESIDENT AT:
SHANTHIPURA VILLAGE
H D KOTE TALUK
Digitally MYSURU-571 125.
signed by
SWAPNA V ...RESPONDENT
Location: high (BY SMT. CHAITRA, ADVOCATE FOR
court of SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)
karnataka
THIS CRL.A FILED U/S.378(1)(3) CR.P.C BY THE ADDL.
SPP FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 01.12.2021 PASSED IN
C.C.NO.429/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C AT H.D.KOTE OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279, 304A
OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29788
CRL.A No. 993 of 2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The state has preferred this appeal impugning the
judgment of acquittal dated 01.12.2021 passed in
C.C.No.429/2017, acquitting the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.
2. Heard Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the appellant, Smt. Chaitra, learned
counel for Sri. Suyog Herele E, learned counsel for the
respondent. Perused the materials on record including the Trial
Court records.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader
representing the appellant-state submitted that the accused
being the driver of the Canter driven the same in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle in which three
persons were traveling. As a result of which, all the three
persons have died. CW-2 is the eyewitness to the incident, but
he has not turned up before the Trial Court. The Trial court,
without issuing summons to summon other witnesses,
NC: 2024:KHC:29788
proceeded to acquit the accused, by passing the impugned
judgment of acquittal, which has resulted in grave injustice.
4. Learned counsel submitted that if the spot
panchanama along with the spot sketch are taken into
consideration, it shows that the driver of the Canter, being the
accused, was not only rash and negligent in his driving, he has
driven the offending vehicle to the extreme right side of the
road, which resulted in accident. The rider of the motorcycle
was on the proper side of the road and therefore, the Trial
Court could not have acquitted the accused, merely because
the eyewitness-CW-2 has not turned up before the Court for
giving evidence. Therefore, she prays for allowing the appeal
and to remand the matter for fresh consideration.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
opposing the appeal submitted that the sole eyewitness - CW-2
has not given evidence before the Trial Court. In spite of the
issuance of a warrant, his presence could not be secured.
Therefore, the Trial Court was right in acquitting the accused.
At this length of period, the matter cannot be remanded to the
Trial Court. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:29788
6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise
for my consideration is:
"Whether the appellant-state has
made out any grounds to allow the
appeal?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the
following:
REASONS
7. The unfortunate incident had occurred where the
canter was said to have collided with the motorcycle on which
three persons were riding and all the three have died. It is
stated that the respondent was the driver of the offending
vehicle and he caused the accident. Admittedly, CW-1 being the
complainant was not the eyewitness. CW-2 is the only
eyewitness to the incident. In spite of issuance of warrant, his
presence could not be secured before the Trial Court. Even
though the prosecution has cited as many as 30 witnesses, the
other witnesses are formal witnesses. It is not the contention of
the learned High Court Government Pleader that by examining
NC: 2024:KHC:29788
any of these witnesses, the contention of the prosecution
regarding rash and negligent driving of the Canter by the
accused could be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
8. The learned High Court Government Pleader placed
reliance on the spot mahazar and the spot sketch to contend
that apparently the accused was in the wrong side, who came
to the extreme right side of the road and dashed the
motorcycle. That means to say the prosecution wants to apply
the principle of res ipsa loquitur to convict the accused. But the
fact remains that there are absolutely no materials to connect
the accused to the offences in question and none of the
witnesses are in a position to speak about the rashness and
negligent act of the accused in commission of the offence.
Under such circumstances, only on the principle of res ipsa
loquitur the accused cannot be convicted. Therefore, I do find
justification for the Trial Court in acquitting the accused. No
purpose would be served by summoning the other witnesses
and examining them before the Court. Hence, I do not find any
merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:29788
9. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPV
