Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Shivanna @ Shivananda on 7 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5553
CRL.A No. 1231 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1231 OF 2020 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KOLLEGALA RURAL POLICE STATION
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI.K HCGP)
AND:
SHIVANNA @ SHIVANANDA
S/O SOMACHAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
OCC: K.S.R.T.C BUS DRIVER,
Digitally signed by BADGE NO.518, K.R NAGAR,
MAYAGAIAH K.S.R.T.C STAGE,
VINUTHA
Location: HIGH
R/O KUPPE VILLAGE,
COURT OF K.R. NAGAR TALUK
KARNATAKA PRESENTLY R/A KANAKA NAGAR
K.R NAGAR,
K.R NAGAR TOWN-571 602.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHIVANNA @ SHIVANANDA, ADVOCATE-ABSENT
SERVED)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.07.2019 PASSED IN
C.C.NO.137/2016 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5553
CRL.A No. 1231 of 2020
AND I J.M.F.C., KOLLEGALA IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 279 AND 338 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though this matter is listed for admission, it is taken up
for final disposal by perusing the evidence and documents
submitted by the Learned HCGP.
2. The State has preferred this appeal against the
judgment of acquittal passed in C.C.No.137/2016 dated
04.07.2019 by the Principal Civil Judge and I JMFC at Kollegala
(hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the Trial Court
acquitted the accused/respondent for the offences punishable
under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.
3. The factual matrix of the prosecution case in brief is
that:
On 23.10.2015, PW.1-complianant along with her family
members was traveling from Kollegala to Male Mahadeshwara
Betta by KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-09-F-4735. She was
NC: 2025:KHC:5553
seated on the rear of the said bus. At about 8.45 A.M in the
morning, near the main road of Singanalluru Bus stand, the
driver of the said bus i.e., respondent herein drove the bus with
utmost negligence while crossing the road hump. Owing to this,
the complainant sustained injuries and was unconscious for
some time. Hence, she lodged the complaint against the
accused/respondent on 25.10.2015 before the Kollegala Rural
Police as per Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1, Kollegala Rural
Police registered a case against the accused in Cr.No.222/2015
for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC.
Thereafter, the police investigated the case and laid the charge
sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.
4. In order to prove the charges leveled against the
accused before the Trial Court, the prosecution in total
examined seven witnesses as PW.1 to PW.7 and marked eight
documents as Exs.P1 to P8.
5. On assessment of the oral and documentary
evidence, the Trial Court acquitted the accused for the charges
NC: 2025:KHC:5553
leveled against him. The said judgment is challenged by the
State in this appeal.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned HCGP Sri. Rahul Rai.K., for
the appellant and perused the materials on record.
7. The primary contention of the learned HCGP is that
the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available
on record in right perspective. He contended that the Trial
Court has not considered the evidence of PW.1-complianant so
also PW.2-eyewitness to the incident. Both these witnesses
have categorically deposed that due to rash and negligent
driving of the accused, PW.1 sustained injuries on her back. He
further contended that PW.1 has lodged the complaint-Ex.P1
soon after the incident and a spot mahazar was also drawn by
the Investigating Officer-PW.6 as per Ex.P2. In such
circumstances, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
accused. Accordingly, he prays to set-aside the appeal by
convicting the appellant for the offences he has charged.
8. Having heard the learned HCGP for the appellant,
the sole point that arise for my consideration is:
NC: 2025:KHC:5553
"Whether the Trial Court is justified in
acquitting the accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC and whether any
interference is required in the impugned judgment?
9. On careful examination of the evidence of PW.1-
injured in this case, she has categorically stated that on the
date of incident, she was traveling by bus from Kollegala to
Male Mahadeshwara Betta and owing to the negligent driving of
the accused, she sustained injuries on her back. However, on
perusal of Ex.P1-complaint and in her evidence, she herself
admitted that while crossing the road hump, she sustained such
injuries. Further, she has not stated in her evidence that the
accused was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner
that too while crossing the hump. In such circumstances, the
ingredients of Sections 279 and 338 of IPC do not attract to the
case on hand. Though PW.2 and PW.3 are the co-passengers,
they are none other than the relatives of PW.1. On perusal of
their evidence also, they categorically admitted that PW.1 has
sustained such injuries while crossing the road hump. Further
they failed to state that the accused was driving the bus in a
rash and negligent manner at the time of crossing the road
hump. Admittedly, they were traveling from Kollegala to Male
NC: 2025:KHC:5553
Mahadeshwara Betta on a curved road. In such circumstances,
the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record in right
perspective and the impugned judgment passed by the Trial
Court does not call for any interference. In that view of the
matter, I answer the point raised above in the negative and
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal filed by the State is dismissed
being devoid of merits.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
VM
