[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shrikant Chudiya Naik vs Jayaram H.R on 5 February, 2026
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1651
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100097 OF 2019 (A)
BETWEEN:
SHRIKANT CHUDIYA NAIK
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. BOBRUWADA, TQ. ANKOLA,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581314.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
JAYARAM H.R.
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. BUS DRIVER,
R/O. HONNALLI @ HOSAHALLI,
MALAVALL, DIST. MANDYA-571606.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.G.S. SAVADATTI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by
VIJAYALAKSHMI VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI M KANKUPPI
Date: 2026.02.10
10:40:49 +0530
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF
CR.P.C. 1973, PRAYING THAT THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.06.2018 IN
C.C.NO.360/2011 PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT, ANKOLA MAY KINDLY
BE SET ASIDE AND PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL THEREBY
PUNISHING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER
SECTIONS 279, 337 AND 338 OF IPC, IN THE ENDS OF PROMOTING
JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1651
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred by the complainant feeling
aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned
JMFC, Ankola, in Criminal Case No.360/2011 dated
13.06.2018.
2. Accused was tried for the offence punishable under
Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, for
allegedly causing an accident by driving the KSRTC bus
bearing registration No.KA:25:F-2259 in a rash and negligent
manner and hitting against the motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA:30:Q-616 of the complainant/injured in which, he
sustained grievous injuries to his right leg.
3. The learned Magistrate on appreciation of the oral
and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution
acquitted the accused vide impugned judgment, extending
benefit of doubt.
4. The accident took place on 08.01.2011 at about
12.45p.m. when the complainant was riding the motorcycle on
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1651
HC-KAR
Kitturu Channamma road. The accused/driver of the KSRTC
bus in question was driving the bus from Manjuguni towards
Ankola. It is alleged that the driver drove the bus in a zigzag
manner, lost control and hit against the motorcycle, due to
which the complainant fell down from the motorcycle and the
front wheel of the bus ran over his leg. The people who
gathered at the spot helped the complainant to send him to
Arya Medical Hospital, Ankola, in the autorikshaw of one
Jagannath Pokka Gouda (PW.2). Further, the complainant was
shifted to Tejaswini Hospital at Mangalore for higher
treatment.
5. Even though the accident took place on
08.01.2011, there was no case registered immediately.
According to the complainant/injured, he informed PW.2 to
lodge a complaint. According to PW.2, he went and informed
the police regarding the incident, who assured to proceed to
the spot. However, no case was registered against the
accused. PW.1 has stated that he took treatment in the
hospital as an inpatient till 31.01.2011 and thereafter he went
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1651
HC-KAR
and enquired about registration of the case and since no case
was registered, he filed a private complaint.
6. PW.6-PSI has deposed that he received the private
complaint on 24.02.2011 and on that basis, he registered a
case against the accused.
7. Though, it is the case of complainant that
immediately he was shifted to the hospital, there is no
material to show that any MLC intimation was sent to the
police station from the hospital, so as to know the cause of the
accident. PW.2 being the auto driver, though supported the
case of prosecution stating that the accident was due to the
fault of the accused, in the cross-examination he has deposed
that when he went to the spot, for the first time, the bus was
already parked.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant
contended that even if the evidence of PW.2 is not acceptable,
the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 goes to show that the accident
was on account of the fault of accused.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1651
HC-KAR
9. I have perused the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4.
PW.3 in his cross-examination has admitted that he has
offered surety and given evidence in several cases. From his
evidence, it can be seen that several persons were present at
the spot and they helped the injured to go to the hospital by
engaging the autorikshaw, whereas he admitted that he has
not gone near the victim. Though, several persons were
present, none of them have been examined by the
prosecution. The evidence of PW.4 goes to show that by the
time he reached the spot, the accident had already occurred.
Hence, his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution.
10. In this case, the police after conducting
investigation have filed 'B' report, which was challenged by
the complainant by filing a protest petition. It is relevant to
mention that a case was registered against the complainant
for rash and negligent driving, in Crime No.5/2011 and the
police have filed charge sheet against him.
The same is deposed by PW.6. The learned Magistrate has
observed in his judgment that a case is registered against the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1651
HC-KAR
complainant in Criminal Case No.123/2011 and he is convicted
in the said case.
11. In the above facts and circumstances, the
judgment of acquittal dated 13.06.2018 passed by the learned
JMFC, Ankola in Crl.Case No.360/2011 does not call for
interference.
The Appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
kmv
CT:PA
