Karnataka High Court
State By Psi vs Sunil Kumar on 14 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46838
CRL.A No. 2265 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2265 OF 2025 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE BY PSI,
PUTTUR TRAFFIC POLICE STATION,
PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-1.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY.R., HCGP)
AND:
SUNIL KUMAR
S/O MUNSI DHOBI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N R/O WARD NO.8, JAYNAGAR ROAD,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
PURNA NAGAR VILLAGE,
KODARMA POST AND TALUK
JHARKHAND STATE - 834 008.
...RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.A FILED U/S 378(1)(3) CR.PC (FILED U/S
419(1)(3) BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE PP AND
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT STATE PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO (1) GRANT LEAVE
TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46838
CRL.A No. 2265 of 2025
HC-KAR
10.07.2025 PASSED IN C.C.NO.722/2022 PASSED BY THE
PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND A.C.J.M AT PUTTUR D.K AND
THEREBY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENT FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 279, 304(A) OF IPC AND SEC.134 (A) (B) R/W
187 OF INDIAN MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The State has preferred this appeal against the
judgment of acquittal passed by the Principal Senior Civil
Judge & A.C.J.M., Puttur in C.C.No.722 of 2022 dated
10.07.2025.
2. The brief facts of the case leading to this appeal
are that the PSI, Puttur Traffic Police have submitted the
charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under
Sections 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC and Sections 134 (A &
B) r/w 187 of IMV Act. It is alleged by the prosecution
that on 18.06.2022 at 12.15 p.m., the accused drove his
car bearing registration umber KA-26-A-7351 in
NC: 2025:KHC:46838
HC-KAR
Mangaluru-Bengaluru State Highway NH-75 from
Uppinangady towards Perne and when he reached Perne,
he tried to overtake the two wheeler bearing registration
number KA-19-EE-8362 being ridden by CW-2 and saw an
on-coming car and suddenly took to the left and hit the
scooter and scooter rider fell to the left side of the road.
Pillion rider of the scooter fell on the road and left tyre of
the lorry went on her head. She suffered severe injuries to
her face. She was taken to Puttur Government Hospital
where she succumbed to the injuries. CW-2 suffered
simple injuries. Accused did not stop the vehicle nor took
the injured to the hospital nor informed about the accident
to the police. Thus, the accused has committed the
offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304(A) of
IPC and Sections 134 (A & B) r/w 187 of IMV Act.
3. After filing the charge-sheet, case was
registered in C.C.No.722 of 2022. After appearance of the
accused, the substance of plea was recorded. Accused
pleaded 'not guilty' and faced the trial.
NC: 2025:KHC:46838
HC-KAR
4. To prove the case of the accused, prosecution
examined 15 witnesses as PWs-1 to 15 and 25 documents
were marked as Exs.P1 to P25. During the course of
cross-examination of PW8, Ex.D1 is marked. On closure of
prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused has totally denied the
evidence of prosecution witnesses, but he has not chosen
to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
5. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the
Trial Court has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by
this acquittal judgment, the State has preferred this
appeal.
6. I have examined the materials placed before
me. From a perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear
that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence
on record, in accordance with the law and facts. The Trial
Court has clearly held that the eye-witnesses have not
stated anything about the rashness and negligence on the
NC: 2025:KHC:46838
HC-KAR
part of the accused. I do not find any error or illegality in
the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court. Hence,
I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
DH
