Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Abdul Rasool S/O Maqbool Murgod on 20 June, 2025

                                                  -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC-D:7905
                                                        CRL.A No. 100099 of 2017


                      HC-KAR




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                               BEFORE

                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100099 OF 2017 (A)

                      BETWEEN:

                      STATE OF KARNATAKA
                      THROUGH TRAFFIC POLICE,
                      DHARWAD.
                      REPRESENTED BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                      DHARWAD BENCH.
                                                                  ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

                      AND:

                      ABDUL RASOOL S/O. MAQBOOL MURGOD,
                      AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
                      OCC. KSRTC DRIVER,
                      R/O. DHARWAD DEPOT, DHARWAD.
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
                                                                   ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Date: 2025.06.24
10:11:50 +0530             THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) &
                      (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL
                      AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
                      DATED 24.10.2016 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND
                      SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.79 OF
                      2016, WHEREBY THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED WAS ACQUITTED
                      OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279 AND 337
                      OF IPC AND TO CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
                      27.06.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND
                      CJM, DHARWAD, IN C.C.NO.201 OF 2015 AGAINST THE
                      RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
                      SECTIONS 279 AND 337 OF IPC.
                                     -2-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC-D:7905
                                           CRL.A No. 100099 of 2017


 HC-KAR



    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                           ORAL JUDGMENT

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

The State has preferred this appeal against the

judgment of acquittal in Crl.A.No.79/2016 dated

24.10.2016 passed by the IV-Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as the

'First Appellate Court'), whereby the learned First

Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the

respondent-accused by setting aside the judgment of

conviction and order on sentence dated 27.06.2016 in

C.C.No.201/2015 passed by the Principal Senior Civil

Judge and CJM, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as the

'Trial Court') and acquitted the respondent-accused for the

offence punishable under Section 279 and 337 of IPC.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7905

HC-KAR

3. The abridged facts of the case are that on

28.04.2016 at about 1.00 p.m., on a public road, near

Sub-Urban Police Station, Dharwad, the respondent-

accused being the driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration

No.KA-25/F2892 drove it in a rash and negligent manner

so as to endanger human life and dashed it to Honda Dio

motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25/EC-2484

wherein PW3 and PW4 were proceeding in front of the said

bus. As a result, the rider and pillion rider of the said

motorcycle sustained simple injuries and were admitted to

the hospital for treatment. On the same day, PW3 has

lodged complaint before the Sub-Urban Police Station

against the driver of the bus as per Ex.P2. On the

strength of Ex.P2-complaint, the police registered the FIR

against the respondent-accused for the offence punishable

under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC in Crime

No.63/2015 as per Ex.P8. Subsequently, PW9 conducted

investigation and laid charge sheet against the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7905

HC-KAR

respondent-accused for the offence stated above before

the Trial Court.

4. The Trial Court after securing the presence of

the accused framed the charges for the aforementioned

offences and read over the same to the accused. However,

the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the charges leveled against the

accused, the prosecution in total examined 9 witnesses as

PW1 to PW9 and got marked 8 documents as Ex.P1 to

Ex.P8.

6. On assessment of oral and documentary

evidence, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 279 and 337 of IPC and

sentence him to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence

punishable under Section 279 of IPC and in default of

payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for

6 months and also sentenced him to pay a fine of ₹500/-

for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC and in

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7905

HC-KAR

default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple

imprisonment for 3 months. Aggrieved by the said

judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the

accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate

Court in Crl.A.No.79/2016.

7. On reassessment of the evidence on record, the

First Appellate Court set aside the judgment passed by the

Trial Court and acquitted the accused for the charges

leveled against him. The said judgment is challenged in

this appeal by the State.

8. Heard the learned HCGP Smt. Girija S

Hiremath, for the appellant-State and the learned counsel

Sri.J.S.Shetty, for the respondent-accused.

9. The primary contention of the learned HCGP for

the appellant-State is, the First Appellate Court, without

appreciating the evidence on record in a right perspective,

has grossly erred in allowing the appeal and setting aside

the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7905

HC-KAR

by the Trial Court. She has contended that PW3 and PW4

are the injured eyewitnesses to the incident and both of

them have categorically stated in their evidence, the

accused being the driver of the KSRTC bus, drove it in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed to their motorcycle

to its left portion, resulting them sustaining injuries. The

evidence of these two witnesses corroborates to the

testimony of the Investigation Officer-PW9 and the wound

certificates/Ex.P4 and P5. Despite, the First Appellate

Court has acquitted the accused by allowing the appeal.

Accordingly, she prays to allow the appeal and set aside

the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondent-accused submits that the judgment under

challenge does not suffer from any perversity or illegality

since the First Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the

evidence on record and passed a well reasoned judgment.

According to the learned counsel for the respondent-

accused, PW3 and PW4, the injured witnesses, have

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7905

HC-KAR

categorically admitted in their evidence that the KSRTC

bus dashed to their motorcycle on the left portion but on

perusal of the sketch, the same depicts, PW3 was riding

his motorcycle on the extreme left side of the road i.e.

close to the footpath and the bus was coming behind the

motorcycle on the right side. In such circumstances, it is

highly impossible to cause an accident on the left portion

of the motorcycle. Hence, the testimony of PW3 and PW4

creates a doubt in respect of the alleged accident in

question. Learned counsel for the accused has also

contended that the eyewitnesses to the incident i.e. PW7

and PW8 have totally turned hostile to the case of the

prosecution. Further, PW1 and PW2, the witnesses to the

spot mahazar, have also turned hostile to the case of the

prosecution. In such circumstances, the sole testimony of

PW3 and PW4 cannot be relied to prove the charges

leveled against the accused. Accordingly, he prays to

dismiss the appeal.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7905

HC-KAR

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the entire material available on record,

the only point that would surface for my consideration is:

"Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under section 279 and 337 of by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial court in C.C.No.201/2015?

12. I have given my anxious consideration to the

arguments advanced by both the learned counsel and

perused the materials on record.

13. As could be gathered from the records, PW3

and PW4 are injured eyewitnesses have stated that the

driver of the bus dashed the bus on the left portion of their

motorcycle while they were riding the motorcycle on the

left side of the road. On careful perusal of the spot sketch-

Ex.P1, it could be seen, the accident in question took place

on the extreme left side of the road near to the foot path.

Further, PW3 was riding his motorcycle on the extreme left

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7905

HC-KAR

side of the road and the accused was driving the KSRTC

bus in the right side of the motorcycle of PW3. In such

circumstances, it is impossible to dash the bus on the left

side of the motorcycle. Further, both these witnesses have

stated that the accused was driving the bus in a high

speed. However, they have not stated that he was driving

the bus in a rash or negligent manner. The Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Satish1 has

settled the position of law that mere driving of a vehicle in

high speed neither amounts to negligence nor to rashness.

In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court, at

paragraph 4, has held as under:

"4. Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not bespeak 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

(1998) 8 SCC 493

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7905

HC-KAR

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."

14. Applying the above principles to the facts and

circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7905

HC-KAR

that the prosecution has failed to prove the rash or

negligent driving of the bus by the accused. Nevertheless,

the PW7 and PW8, the independent eyewitnesses, have

also totally turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

There is no such corroborative piece of evidence available

on record to rely the testimony of PW3 and PW4.

Moreover, this is an appeal against the judgment of