Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Mahammadali on 12 June, 2025

                                                   -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC-D:7582
                                                         CRL.A No. 100085 of 2017


                      HC-KAR




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                                BEFORE

                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100085 OF 2017 (A)

                      BETWEEN:
                      STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                      REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
                      DANDELI RURAL POLICE STATION,
                      THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                      ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
                      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                      DHARWAD BENCH.
                                                                   ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

                      AND:

                      MAHAMMADALI
                      S/O. MAHAMMAD HUSSEN HANUMANAL,
                      AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER OF KSRTC,
                      R/O. UPPINABETAGERI, TQ. DHARWAD.
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
                                                                       ...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
                      (BY SRI. B.N. JAMADAR, ADVOCATE)
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Date: 2025.06.13
14:11:49 +0530
                            THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND
                      (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL
                      AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
                      28.11.2016 PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT, HALIYAL IN C.C.NO. 258
                      OF 2015 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
                      ACQUITTAL DATED 28.11.2016 PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT,
                      HALIYAL IN CC.NO. 258 OF 2015 AND CONVICT THE
                      RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
                      SECTIONS 279 AND 338 OF IPC.

                            THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS
                      DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

                      CORAM:    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
                                          -2-
                                                    NC: 2025:KHC-D:7582
                                               CRL.A No. 100085 of 2017


    HC-KAR




                               ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment

of acquittal passed in CC No.258/2015, dated 28.11.2016, on

the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Halyal1, whereby the

trial Court acquitted the accused for the offences punishable

under Sections 279 & 338 of IPC.

2. The factual matrix of the prosecution's case is that,

the injured i.e. Basavanneppa Babu Mallur (PW1) and his wife

Smt.Sudarani Basavanneppa Mallur (PW3) were proceeding on

their motorbike from Bailhongal to Ulavi Channabasaweshwar

Temple on 19.4.2015 at about 10.30 a.m. When they reached

the place called Burchi, the driver of KSRTC bus bearing

registration No.KA-25/F-3013 was driving the bus from the

opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed

to the motorbike of the complainant/PW1. Resultantly, PW1

and PW3 fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries.

Later, they shifted to Govt. Hospital, Dandeli for the treatment.

During the course of treatment, PW1 lodged the complaint

against the driver of KSRTC bus on 19.4.2015 as per Ex.P1. On

Hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7582

HC-KAR

the strength of Ex.P1, Dandeli Rural Police registered a case

against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections

279, 337 & 338 of IPC in Crime No.15/2015 on 19.4.2015 as

per Ex.P6. Subsequently, PW7-PSI of the said Police

investigated the case and laid charge sheet against the accused

for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.

3. After securing the presence of the accused, the trial

Court framed charges against the accused for the aforesaid

offences. To prove the charges leveled against the accused,

the prosecution in total examined seven witnesses as PW1 to

PW7 and got marked seven documents as per Ex.P1 to P7

before the trial Court.

4. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused for

the charges leveled against him. The said judgment of

acquittal is challenged in this appeal by the State.

5. I have heard Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP

for the appellant/State, so also Sri. B.N. Jamadar, learned

counsel for the respondent/accused. Perused the trial Court

records.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7582

HC-KAR

6. Learned HCGP vehemently contended that the trial

Court grossly erred while acquitting the accused, despite the

prosecution placed sufficient evidence to prove the charges

leveled against the accused. She contended that the evidence

of PW1 and PW3-injured eye witnesses to the incident, clearly

proves that the accused being driver of KSRTC bus drove the

same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the

motorbike of PW1, as a result, himself and PW3 sustained

grievous injuries. She also contended that doctor-PW4, who

examined the injured and issued Wound Certificate as per

Ex.P3 and P4, deposed that PW1 and PW3 have sustained

injuries on the relevant date and time in the road traffic

accident. In such circumstance, the trial Court erred in

acquitting the accused. Thus, she prays to allow the appeal.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondent/accused contended that the trial Court, after

meticulously examining the entire evidence on record, passed a

reasoned judgment, which does not call for interference at the

hands of this Court. He contended that there are much

infirmities and contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW3-

injured eye witnesses, who failed to state as to how and in

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7582

HC-KAR

what manner the alleged accident took place. He further

contended that both of these witnesses (PW1 and PW3) failed

to state that on the relevant date and time, on which direction

they were proceeding on their motorbike and also from which

direction, the bus came and dashed to the motorbike. In such

circumstance, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused for

the charges leveled against him. He also contended that this

being an appeal against acquittal, if plausible view is taken by

the trial Court, then the appellate Court shall not interfere in

the said judgment as per law laid down by the Apex Court.

Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective

parties and on perusal of the documents available on record,

the only point that would surface for my consideration in this

appeal is:

"Whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 &

338 of IPC?"

9. As could be gathered from the records, the accident

in question and sustaining of the injuries by PW1 and PW3 in

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7582

HC-KAR

the said accident is not in dispute. However, to connect the

accused for the same, the prosecution predominantly relied on

the evidence of PW1 and PW3, the injured eyewitnesses. On

perusal of their evidence, they have stated that on the relevant

date and time, they were proceeding on their motorbike from

Bailhongal to Ulavi Channabasaweshwara Temple, and when

they reached the place called Burchi, KSRTC bus came from

opposite direction with high speed and dashed to their

motorbike. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the

respondent, both of these witnesses have failed to state that

from which direction, the bus came and hit their motorbike.

Further, they also failed to identify the driver of the bus at that

relevant point of time. Both of these witnesses have not stated

as to whether the driver of the bus was driving the vehicle in a

rash and negligent manner.

10. This Court in Crl.RP No.1004/2021 held that mere

driving the vehicle in high speed, itself cannot establish that he

was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. This

Court, in the aforesaid case, by relying on judgment of the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7582

HC-KAR

Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs Satish2 has

held in paragraphs-17 and 18 as under:

"17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Satish reported in (1998) 8 SCC 493 has settled the position of law that mere driving of vehicle in high speed neither amounts to negligence nor rashness in itself and has held in para 4 of the said judgment as under;

4. Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not be speak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed".

"High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur". There is evidence to show that immediately before the truck turned turtle, there was a big jerk. It is not explained as to whether the jerk was because of the uneven road or mechanical failure. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle had submitted his report. That report is not forthcoming from the record and the Inspector was not examined for reasons best known to the prosecution. This is a serious infirmity and lacuna in the prosecution case."

18. Effectively, at this juncture I find it imperative to touch upon the nuances of understanding the term

(1998) 8 SCC 493

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7582

HC-KAR

'negligence', negligence essentially is defined or rather understood in a rudimentary sense as a breach of duty. Meaning, an act of negligence must be coupled with willful omission of doing something which a prudent person would have done in similar circumstance. This breach of duty should lead to some kind of damage. Further, while ascertaining the degree of negligence, it is significant to ruminate on the 'Principle of Foreseeability and Proximity' as laid down by Lord Atkin in the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson reported in 1932 A.C 562. Additionally, let us take a moment to delve into comprehending and elucidate the conundrum that needs to be addressed: What amounts to rashness and negligence? Rashness innately implies to recklessness coupled with a state of conscious breach of duty to care where there exists a necessity of care i.e., negligence. Rashness and negligence are multi-faceted concepts which cannot be comprehended and interpreted in isolation, it significantly depends on facts and circumstances of each case."

11. Applying the principles enumerated in the above

judgment to the facts and circumstances of the present case,

since PW1 and PW3 failed to state that the driver of the bus

was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner, so also

considering the aspect that this is an appeal against acquittal,

I am of the considered view that the view taken by the trial

Court is a plausible view and as such, the interference in the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7582

HC-KAR

impugned judgment does not call for. In that view of the

matter, I answer point raised above in the affirmative and

proceed to pass the following: