Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence
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."
10. In the case of MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v.
"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:5160
11. 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5160
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...."
12. 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."
13. 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5160
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."
14. 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.
15. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.04.2015
at about 10:00 a.m., the accused being the driver of Maruti
Swift Car bearing registration No.KL-08/BA-1357 was driving
the same from Karwar to Mangalore NH17 opposite Belke
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5160
Society at Bhatkal, drove in a rash and negligent manner so as
to endanger to human life and dashed the pedestrian by name
Badiya Sannu Gonda, who was waiting for bus in the side of
NH17 road. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and died
in the hospital.
16. In charge sheet that there are 16 witnesses cited in
the charge sheet. Out of them, 9 witnesses are examined as
PWs.1 to 9. CW1 - complainant, Vasanta Nagayya Gonda
examined as PW1. He has deposed in his evidence that as to
the contents of the complaint, which is marked as Ex.P1. He
has also deposed as to the mahazar conducted by the Police as
per Ex.P2.
17. CW2 - Nagappa Masti Naik said to be the attester to
the spot panchanama and also the inquest panchanama has
deposed as to the conduct of the said spot panchanama and
inquest panchanama.
18. CW5 - Raghavendra Kuppayya Gonda, CW6 -
Krishna Bachha Gonda, CW7 - Ramesh Masti Gonda, CW8 -
Keshava Mastayya Naik, said to be the eye witnesses are
examined as PWs.3 to 6 respectively. All these witnesses have
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5160
deposed in their evidence that on 16.04.2015 at 09:45 a.m.,
when they were standing near the Nanda Deepa Xerox centre
by the side of NH-17, Bachhgonda was waiting for the bus to go
to Bhatkal at 10:00 a.m. the driver of the white car came from
Kundapura in a rash and negligent manner and lost control
over his vehicle and dashed against Badiya Sannu Gonda who
was aged 75 years. As a result, he sustained injuries on his
head and legs. Thereafter he died in the hospital.
19. CW10 - Rama Badiya Gonda examined as PW7 is a
hearsay witness, the son of the deceased. He has deposed as
to the alleged accident, after filing the complaint from his son
PW1.
20. CW14 - Naveen Govind Naik, who was examined as
PW8. He has deposed in his evidence that he has assisted to
the Investigating Officers for conducting spot panchanama,
inquest panchanama and rough sketch.
21. CW16 - Prashant Suresh Naik, CPI and CW15 -
Manjunath T.H., PSI examined as PWs.9 and 10 respectively.
They have deposed as to their respective investigation
conducted by them.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5160
22. Though the material witness, the complainant PW1
- Vasanta, the eyewitness PWs.3 to 6, Raghavendra Kuppayya
Gonda, Krishna Bachha Gonda, Ramesh Naik and Keshava Naik
have deposed in their evidence that the accident occurred,
when the deceased was standing by the side of the road, but
during their cross-examination they have categorically stated
that the accident has been occurred when the deceased was
crossing the road along with CW1.
23. PW5 - Ramesh Naik has clearly admitted that only
after hearing the sound he came to know this accident.
24. This admission of the above said material witnesses
clearly goes to show that the Investigating Officer has
suppressed the material facts and stated in the complaint that
while the deceased was standing by the side of the road, this
accident was occurred. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer
has prepared the panchanama and spot mahazar and also
recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. but fortunately, all the material witnesses have deposed
in their cross-examination that the accident occurred while the
deceased was crossing the road. The material placed before the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5160
Court reveals that the evidence of material prosecution
witnesses are cogent and convincing to the case of the
prosecution. Same creates doubt as to the act of the accused.
25. Considering all these aspects, the trial Court has
properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with
law and facts and acquitted the accused.
26. On careful re-consideration, re-examination and re-
appreciation of the evidence on record and also keeping in mind
the aforesaid decisions, I am of the considered opinion that
absolutely there are no materials to interfere with the
impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.
Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative and for the
aforesaid reasons and discussions, with regard to point No.2, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
RSH / Ct-cmu
