Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Manjunath K.A on 20 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5121
CRL.A No. 100208 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100208 OF 2017 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY C.P.I.,
HONNAVAR CIRCLE, HONNAVAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.)
AND:
MANJUNATH K.A.,
S/O. ANNAPPA K.R.,
AGED 30 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC DRIVER,
R/O: KUGVE, SAGAR TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA,
NOW R/AT KSRTC DEPOT, SAGAR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)
VISHAL
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Digitally signed by
VISHAL
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 378
Date: 2025.03.25
16:20:51 +0530 (1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE
TO APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 22.12.2016 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, HONNAVAR IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.20 OF
2016 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279
AND 304-A OF IPC AND TO CONVICT THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 279 AND 304-A OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5121
CRL.A No. 100208 of 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment
of acquittal passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Principal
J.M.F.C., Honnavar in Criminal Case No.20/2016 [Old
No.208/2015] dated 22.12.2016 [for short, 'trial Court'].
2. Parties are referred to as per their status before the
Trial Court.
3. The facts leading to this appeal is that the Police
have submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and
304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, 'IPC']. It is
alleged by the prosecution that on 26.01.2015 at 09:30 a.m.
CW4 was walking along with his son Soofiyana from Upponi
Platkeri towards Sagar by the side of the road on NH 206.
When CW4 / PW3 was proceeding by the side of the road
towards Sagar along with his son Soofiyana [deceased]. The
accused being the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing registration
No.KA-17/F-1331 driven in a high speed, rash and negligent
manner, so as to endanger to human life and dashed to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5121
Soofiyana and caused his death on spot. Thus the accused has
committed offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of
IPC. After filing the charge sheet, the jurisdictional Magistrate
has taken cognizance against the accused for the alleged
commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and
304A of IPC. The case was registered in C.C. No.20/2016. The
substance of accused was recorded. The accused pleaded not
guilty and claim to be tried.
4. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all, 10
witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 10, 13 documents were
marked as Exs.P1 to P13. On closure of prosecution side
evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was
recorded. The accused has submitted his written explanation
for the aforesaid alleged incident. The accused has denied the
evidence prosecution witnesses and he has submitted in the
written statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and during the
course of cross-examination of PW3, a portion of statement of
PW3 is marked as Ex.D1. Accused has not adduced any defence
evidence on his behalf.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5121
5. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial
Court has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by this
judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.
6. The learned Additional S.P.P. Sri. M.B. Gundawade
would submit that the judgment and order of acquittal passed
by the trial Court is contrary to law, facts and evidence on
record. Same is not sustainable in the eye of law.
7. It is submitted that PW1 is the complainant and
PWs.2 to 6 are other eye witnesses to the incident. All the
witnesses have specifically and categorically stated that the
accused was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the
accident and he was driving the vehicle in a high speed and in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased
and caused the death of Soofiyana. The evidence is further
corroborated by the spot sketch Ex.P3 and spot mahazar. The
above evidence has not been properly read and appreciated by
the trial Court and by giving importance to the minor
contradictions and improvements found in the prosecution case
has erroneously acquitted the accused. The trial Court has not
assigned any proper and acceptable reasons for discarding the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5121
evidence of material eye witnesses and also reasons for
acquittal of the accused.
8. It is an admitted fact that the accused was the
driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The rash and
negligent driving of the accused has been proved by the
prosecution beyond doubt by producing the evidence of PWs.1,
3 to 6. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the
evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. On these
grounds, the learned Additional S.P.P. sought for allowing this
appeal.
9. As against this, the learned counsel Sri. Girish A.
Yadawad submits that the trial Court has properly appreciated
the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and
submitted that absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with
the impugned judgment of acquittal and sought for dismissal of
the appeal.
10. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on
perusal of the materials placed before me, the following points
would arise for my consideration.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5121
i. Whether the State has made out grounds to
interfere with the impugned judgment of
acquittal?
ii. What order?
11. My answer to the above points are as under:
i. Negative
ii. As per final order
12. I have carefully examined the materials placed
before this Court.
13. Before adverting to the actual facts of the case and
appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to refer the dictum of
Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope and power of Appellate
Court in appeal against the order of acquittal.
14. In the case of Motiram Padu Joshi & Others v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE SC
676, at paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is held thus:
"23. While considering the scope of power of the
appellate court in an appeal against the order of
acquittal, after referring to various judgments,
in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007)4 SCC 415,
this Court summarised the principle as under:-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5121
"42. From the above decisions, in our
considered view, the following general principles
regarding powers of the appellate court while
dealing with an appeal against an order of
acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power
to review, reappreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal
is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 puts no limitation, restriction or
condition on exercise of such power and an
appellate court on the evidence before it
may reach its own conclusion, both on
questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as,
"substantial and compelling reasons",
"good and sufficient grounds", "very strong
circumstances", "distorted conclusions",
"glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to
curtail extensive powers of an appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of
"flourishes of language" to emphasise the
reluctance of an appellate court to interfere
with acquittal than to curtail the power of
the court to review the evidence and to
come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however,
must bear in mind that in case of acquittal,
there is double presumption in favour of
the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the
fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5121
is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial court."
15. In the case of MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS reported
in 2019 SCC ONLINE 69, at paragraph 16 of the judgment it is
held as under:
"16. The High Court in the present case was
dealing with an appeal against acquittal. In such a case,
it is well settled that the High Court will not interfere
with an order of acquittal merely because it opines that
a different view is possible or even preferable. The High
Court, in other words, should not interfere with an order
of acquittal merely because two views are possible. The
interference of the High Court in such cases is governed
by well-established principles. According to these
principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence
by the trial court is capricious or its conclusions are
without evidence that the High Court may reverse an
order of acquittal. The High Court may be justified in
interfering where it finds that the order of acquittal is
not in accordance with law and that the approach of the
trial court has led to a miscarriage of justice. ..."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5121
16. In the case of HARI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF
RAJASTHAN reported in 2000 SCC ONLINE 933, at paragraph
4 of the judgment, it is observed thus:
"4. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned
Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan
on the other hand contended that the power of the High
Court while hearing an appeal against an order of
acquittal is in no way different from the power while
hearing an appeal against conviction and the Court,
therefore was fully justified in re-appreciating the entire
evidence, upon which the order of acquittal was based.
The High Court having examined the reasons of the
learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of
PWs 6 & 7 and having arrived at the conclusion, that
those reasons are in the realm of conjectures and there
has been gross miscarriage of justice and the mis-
appreciation of the evidence on record is the basis for
acquittal, was fully entitled to set aside an order of
acquittal and no error can be said to have been
committed. It is too well settled that the power of the
High Court, while hearing an appeal against an acquittal
is as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a
conviction and it had full power to re- appreciate the
entire evidence, but if two views on the evidence are
reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and
the other indicating conviction, then the High Court
would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal,
merely because it feels that it would sitting as a trial
court, have taken the other view. While re- appreciating
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5121
the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the
High Court should give proper weight and consideration
to the views of the learned trial Judge. But if the
judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely
perverse, legally erroneous and based on wrong
appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and
proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of
acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise,
there would be gross miscarriage of justice...."
17. In the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN v.
KISTOORA RAM reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE 684, at
paragraph 8 of the judgment it is held as under:
"8. The scope of interference in an appeal
against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that
the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it
is not permissible to interfere with the finding of
acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not
permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely
because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction
to be more probable. The interference would be
warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all."
18. In the case of MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2016)10 SCC 220, at
paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is observed thus:
"12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is
presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5121
competent court after a full-fledged trial, and once the
trial court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then
the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden
on the appellate court while dealing with the appeal. No
doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the
power of the appellate court to review, reappreciate and
reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon
which the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has
to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless
there are compelling and substantial grounds to
interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court
while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for
such a conclusion."
19. It is also necessary to mention here as to the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as to burden of proof in
offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. In the
case of NANJUNDAPPA AND ANOTHER vs. THE STATE
OF KARNATAKA reported in 2022 LiveLaw (5) 489, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
stricto sensu would not apply to criminal cases.
20. It is the case of the prosecution that on 26.01.2015
at 09:30 a.m. CW4 was walking along with his son Soofiyana
from Upponi Platkeri towards Sagar by the side of the road on
NH 206. When CW4 / PW3 was proceeding by the side of the
road towards Sagar along with his son Soofiyana [deceased].
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5121
The accused being the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing
registration No.KA-17/F-1331 driven in a high speed, rash and
negligent manner, so as to endanger to human life and dashed
to Soofiyana and caused his death on spot.
21. CW1 is said to be the complainant Sri. Basha Ali
Khan as PW1. He has deposed in his evidence that on
26.01.2015 near Upponi Janatha plot, near the house of CW6
he along with CW5, when CW4 - Irshad Adam Sab along with
Soofiyana were walking on the left side of the Gerusoppa
Honnavara road, on the left side of the road, the accused being
the driver of the KSRTC bus came from Gerusoppa road in a
high speed and dashed to Soofiyana. The bus was stopped at a
distance of 15 to 20 feet after the accident. The child Soofiyana
died at the spot and he has lodged the complaint to the Police
as per Ex.P1.
22. CW3 - Mohammed Hussain Abu Mohammed said to
be the attester to the mahazar - Ex.P2 and also attester to the
spot sketch - Ex.P3 examined as PW2, deposed as to the
mahazar conducted by the Police on 26.01.2015 and also the
rough sketch prepared by the Police.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5121
23. CW4 - Irshad Adam Sab and also father of the
deceased, examined as PW3 has deposed in his evidence that
the deceased Soofiyana Irshad Sab is his son, he was aged 5
years. On 26.01.2015 he and his son Soofiyana were walking
from Honnavar side towards Gerusoppa on the left side of the
road on the mud portion near Upponi plot colony on NH4, the
accused being the driver of the KSRTC bus driving the same in
a high speed and hit to his son Soofiyana and his son died on
the spot. The accident occurred due to fault of the accused.
24. CW6 Ajeem Ahmed Sab said to be the eye witness
examined as PW4 has deposed in his evidence that at about
one year back, he was proceeding in a bike from Gerusoppa to
Arengadi. He was standing near the house of Ahmed Sab
Mohiddin Sab. He was talking with CWs.1, 5 and 8. By that
time, CW4 and his son Soofiyana were proceeding towards left
side of the road from Gerusoppa Honnavar road and dashed
against Soofiyana and Soofiyana died on the spot.
25. CW5 - Sheikh Imtiyaz and CW8 - Asif are said to
be the eye witnesses examined as PWs.5 and 6, they have
deposed in their evidence that on 26.01.2015 at 09:30 a.m.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5121
when Soofiyana was proceeding along with his father near
Janata Plot Upponi Bengaluru Honnavara road, the KSRTC bus
came from Bengaluru side in a high speed and dashed against
Soofiyana. As a result, Soofiyana died on the spot.
26. CW14 - Parameshwar Ram Gunaga, the Police
Inspector and CW13 - Smt. Mariyambi Usman, Head Constable
and CW15 - Manjunath M Gouda, CPI, Hosanagara, examined
as PWs.7, 9 and 10 respectively, they have deposed as to their
respective investigation conducted by them.
27. CW11 - Laxminarayan Pursayya Naik, Motor Vehicle
Inspector examined as PW8. He has deposed as to the
inspection of the vehicle of KSRTC bus bearing registration
No.KA-17/F-1331 and also issuance of MV report as per Ex.P12.
28. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, he
has stated that he was walking along with CW6 at the time of
the accident on the left side and the road leading from
Honnavara to Gerusoppa. He has stated that he was walking
along with CWs.5 and 6 at the time of the accident on the left
side of the road leading from Honnavara to Gerusoppa. He has
stated that he and CWs.5 and 6 went to the spot on hearing
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5121
the sound of the accident and he has stated that there were
break marks at the spot. During the course of cross-
examination of PW3, he has stated that at the time of the
accident, he was holding the hand of his son. He and his son
both fell on the road. But during the course of cross-
examination of PW4, he has stated that front left side of the
bus dashed to Soofiyana. Deceased Soofiyana was proceeding
at a distance of 30 meters ahead of his father at the time of the
accident.
29. PW.6 has stated in his cross-examination that he
was standing along with CWs.1, 5 and 6 near the place of the
accident. They came to know about the accident after hearing
the sound of the accident.
30. In the written statement submitted by the accused ,
he has stated as under:
1) F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆævÀ£ÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ºÉÆ£ÁߪÀgÀ
¥ÉÆðøÀgÀÄ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸À°è¹zÀ ZÁdð ²Ãmï ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÁUÀÆ
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ºÉýzÀ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÄÀ ¸ÀļÁîVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
2) £Á£ÀÄ PÀ¼ÉzÀ 8 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÁUÀgÀ¢AzÀ ºÉÆ£ÁߪÀgÀ
gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è PÉ.J¸ï.Dgï.n.¹. §¸ï ZÁ®PÀ£ÁV PÁAiÀÄ𠤪Àð»¹
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5121
§A¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ ZÉ£ÁßVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F C¥ÀWÁvÀ £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀܼÀ
G¥ÉÆàÃt ºÀwÛgÀ«zÀÄÝ, C°è oÁgï gÀ¸ÛÉ 12 Cr CUÀ® EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
3) ¢£ÁAPÀ: 26-01-2015 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁUÀgÀ¢AzÀ ºÉÆgÀlÄ ªÀÄzsåÀ -
ªÀÄzsÀå ¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂPÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆræ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¤zsÁ£ÀªÁV ºÁUÀÆ JZÀÑjPɬÄAzÀ
§¸Àì£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. G¥ÉÆàÃt ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÁUÀ
¸ÁUÀgÀ¢AzÀ ºÉÆ£ÁߪÀgÀPÌÉ §gÀĪÀ gÀ¸ÛÉAiÀÄ §®UÀqÉ oÁgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ¬ÄAzÀ 4 Cr
CAvÀgÀzÀ°è MAzÀÄ DmÉÆà jPÁëzÀ ºÀwÛgÀ M§â NªÀð ªÀAiÀĸÁìzÀ ªÀåQÛ ºÁUÀÆ
NªÀð ¨Á®PÀ ¤AwzÀÝgÄÀ . ¸À¢æ ªÀAiÀĸÁìzÀ ªÉÊQÛ jPÁëzÀªÀ£Æ
É qÀ£É
ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ, D ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀ §¸ÀÄì 6-7
Cr zÀÆgÀzÀ°ègÀĪÁUÀ aPÀÌ ¨Á®PÀ EzÀÝQÌzÝÀ AvÉ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀƪÀð ¸ÀÆZÀ£É
E®èzÉà gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ §®§¢¬ÄAzÀ oÁgÀÄ gÀ¸ÛÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÀwÛ JqÀUÀqÉUÉ Nr
§A¢zÀÄÝ, £Á£ÀÄ vÀPÀëtzÀ°è §¹ìUÉ ¨ÉæÃPï ºÁQ Cw eÁUÀgÆ
À PÀvɬÄAzÀ §¸Àì£ÀÄß
JqÀUÀqÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ºÁUÀÆ 7-8 Cr zÀÆgÀzÀ°è §¸Àì£ÄÀ ß
JqÀUÀqÉUÉ ¤°è¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. §¹ì£À°ègÄÀ ªÀ ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtÂPÀjUÀÆ PÀÆqÀ K£ÀÆ
vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀiÁUÀzÉà EgÀĪÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è §¸Àì£ÀÄß JqÀUÀqÉUÉ ¤°è¹zÀÄÝ, AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ
PÀëtzÀ°èAiÀÄÆ £Á£ÀÄ §¹ì£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤AiÀÄAvÀætªÀ£ÄÀ ß PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
ºÁUÀÆ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀ£ÁV ªÀwð¹°®è. §¸Àì£ÄÀ ß ¤°è¹ vÀPÀët PɼÀUÉ §AzÀÄ
£ÉÆÃrzÁUÀ §¹ì£À CrAiÀÄ°è ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ ©zÀÄÝPÉÆArgÀĪÀ ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°èzÝÀ . ºÀwÛgÀ
EzÀÝ jPÁë ZÁ®PÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀAiÀĸÁìzÀ ªÀåQÛ PÀÆqÀ vÀPëÀt §AzÀÄ £ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¥ÀæAiÀiÁtÂPÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ PɼÀV½zÀÄ §AzÀÄ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ §¹ì£À CrAiÀÄ°è ©¢ÝgÀĪÀzÀ£ÀÄß
£ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. D ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄzÀ°è CªÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß ºÉÆgÀvÄÀ ¥Àr¹ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁgÀÆ
EgÀ°è®è.
4) £Á£ÀÄ ¤zsÁ£ÀªÁV §¸Àì£ÄÀ ß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ
C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀlÖ ºÀÄqÀUÀ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀƪÀð ¸ÀÆZÀ£É¬Ä®èzÉà gÀ¸ÉÛUÉ £ÀÄVÎ
§A¢zÀÝjAzÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀ¦à¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ §¹ì£À M¼ÀVzÀÝ ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtÂPÀjUÉ
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀiÁUÀzÀAvÉ §¸Àì£ÄÀ ß ¤zsÁ£ÀªÁV JqÀUÀqÉUÉ ¤zsÁ£ÀªÁV
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5121
¤°è¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. F C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀÅ £À£Àß vÀ¦à¤AzÀ CxÀªÁ CeÁUÀgÆ
À PÀvÀ£À¢AzÀ
DVzÀÄÝ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
31. A perusal of the written statement by the accused,
it is crystal clear that the accused has not disputed this
accident. But he has set up a specific defence that the boy
Soofiyana without any signal all of a sudden came on road and
he tried to avoid the accident by applying break, he took the
bus towards extreme left side of the road with an intention to
avoid the accident and also not to cause any inconvenience to
the bus and he stopped the bus. This accident is not occurred
due to his fault and negligence.
32. PWs.1, 3, 5 and 6 have stated that in their evidence
that PW.3 was holding the hand of Soofiyana and proceeding
on the mud portion of the road. However, PW4 - Ajeem Ahmed
Sab has stated that Soofiyana was proceeding 30 meters ahead
of his father and Soofiyana towards Honnavara from the house
of the Pandit Vaidya and his father towards Upponi. The
evidence of PW4 discloses that Soofiyana and his father were
not proceeding together at the time of the accident.
33. PW3 father of Soofiyana has stated in his evidence
that his father-in-law's house is situated at a distance of 30
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5121
meters from the place of incident and is situated by the side of
tar road. He has stated in his further statement marked as
Ex.P1 that he had come to the house of his father-in-law's
house Ahmed Sab along with his wife and children for Urs and
Kavali programme and stayed in the house of father-in-law on
the previous night but he has denied his statement. However,
he has admitted that his father-in-law's is situated at a distance
of 30 meter from the place of accident. PW6 has also admitted
the same.
34. Considering all these aspects, the trial Court has
observed in para 19 of the judgment as under:
19. Considering the evidence of Prosecution
witnesses it clearly appears that the house of father-in-
law of PW-3 i.e., the grandfather of deceased Soofiyana
situated very close to the place of incident. One witness
has stated that father and son were not walking
together on the place of incident. The evidence shows
that it was a single road, accused suddenly applied
brake and took his Bus to the extreme left side of the
road. PW-3 who is the material witness i.e., father of
the deceased has stated that the accident has taken
place on the left side of the road leading from Honavar
to Sagar which is other side of the place of incident put
forth by the Prosecution. Some of the witnesses have
stated that they went to the place of incident on hearing
the sound of the accident. Considering all these
circumstances, it appears that the defense of the
accused is more probable that the deceased boy
suddenly came running from his grandfather's house to
the road and the Bus driver in order to avoid hitting him
took his Bus to the extreme left side of the road by
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5121
applying brake. The Prosecution evidence creates doubt
as to the manner which the accident has taken place as
put forth by the, Prosecution. Therefore, the Prosecution
has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, I answer point no.1 in the negative.
35. On re-appreciation, re-consideration and re-
examination of the entire evidence on record, keeping in mind
the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I do not find
any error or illegalities and infirmities in the impugned
judgment of acquittal. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the
negative and point No.2 as under.
36. For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
RSH / CT-CMU
