THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs HARSHA S
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59966
CRL.A No. 986 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010239982022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 986 OF 2022 (A)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PUTTUR TRAFFIC POLICE STATION
PUTTUR, D. K.
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.)
AND:
1. HARSHA S
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O SHIVAYYA
R/AT SHIVA KRIPA,
BEHIND RANGALAXMI KALYANA MANTAPA,
D. M. HALLI, THANNIRAHALLI,
HASSAN-571187.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
(BY SRI. K. A. CHANDRASHEKARA., ADV.)
CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C BY THE STATE
P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.12.2020 PASSED IN
C.C.NO.2085/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND A.C.J.M., AT PUTTUR, D.K.,
THEREBY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED- RESPONDENT OF THE
OFFENCE P/U/S.279,337,338 AND 304-A OF IPC AND ETC.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59966
CRL.A No. 986 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010239982022
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
State has preferred this appeal against the judgment
of acquittal dated 15.12.2020 passed in CC No.2085 of
2017 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, at
Puttur, Dakshina Kannada (for short, the “trial Court”).
2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that,
Inspector of Police, Puttur Town Police Station, has laid
charge-sheet against the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of
Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that on
7.11.2016 at 11:15 am, the accused being the driver of
the car bearing Registration No.KA-50/N-5717, drove the
same from Bangalore towards Mangalore on NH-75 within
the jurisdiction of Puttur Traffic Police near Bedrodi of
Bajatur Village, in a rash and negligent manner, and
endangering human life and moved towards wrong side of
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59966
CRL.A No. 986 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010239982022
the road and dashed against the oncoming motorcycle
bearing registration number KA-19/W-5787. The impact
of which, the rider and the pillion Rider of the said
motorcycle fell and sustained grievous injuries and
succumbed to the accidental injuries. CW4-Smt.
Subhashini, the inmate of the car sustained simple
injuries, CW5-Smt. Sarvamangala, CW6-Smt.
Kamalamma, and CW7-Shivayya sustained grievous
injuries. Thus, the accused has committed the alleged
offences.
3. Statement of accusation was recorded for the
offence punishable and Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A)
of IPC and the plea was read over to the accused.
Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In
order to prove the case, the prosecution has in examined
9 witnesses as PWs1 to 9 and got marked 21 documents
as Exhibits P1 to P21. On closure of prosecution side
evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313
of CrPC was recorded. Accused has totally denied the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59966
CRL.A No. 986 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010239982022
evidence of prosecution witnesses appearing against him,
however, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence
on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides,
the trial Court acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by
this judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this
appeal.
4. Sri K Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for
the appellant-State, would submit that the impugned
judgment is not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the
learned Sessions Judge, while passing the judgment has
reached a wrong conclusion which has resulted in
substantial miscarriage of justice. The prosecution has
established the case beyond reasonable doubt by
examining the witness to the incident. PWs1 to 3 and also
the medical evidence corroborating the evidence of eye-
witnesses. It is further submitted that the evidence of
eye-witnesses is further corroborated by medical evidence
along with the report of Inspector of Motor Vehicles as per
Exhibit P18 and also the sketch at Exhibit P3, which
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59966
CRL.A No. 986 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010239982022
establish the case of prosecution. The trial Judge has lost
sight of the fact that nothing has been elicited to
disbelieve the evidence of PWs1 to3 who are the eye-
witnesses. The learned trial Judge has taken into
consideration the minor discrepancies from the evidence of
eye-witnesses which are bound to take in place of truthful
witnesses because of lapse of time. The trial Court has
not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper
perspective and has reached a wrong conclusion. On all
these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal.
5. As against this Sri K A Chandrashekara, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that
the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on
record in its proper perspective and has acquitted the
respondent and the same does not call for interference in
this appeal. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59966
CRL.A No. 986 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010239982022
6. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on
perusal of materials place before this court, the following
points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the State has made out grounds to
interfere with the impugned judgment of
acquittal?
2. What order?
7. My answer to the above points are:
Point No.1: In the negative;
Point No.2: as per final order.
Regarding Point No.1:
8. Before appreciation of evidence on record, it is
necessary to mention as to the judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of CONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA
SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
reported in (2025)5 SCC 433; BABU SAHEBGOUDA
RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
reported in (2024)8 SCC 149; CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59966
CRL.A No. 986 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010239982022
KARNATAKA reported in (2007)4 SCC 415; and H.D.
SUNDARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2023)9
SCC 581, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid
down the principles governing exercise of appellate
jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against judgment
of acquittal under section 378 of Code of Criminal
Procedure. That, th e acquittal of the accused further
strengthens the presumption of innocence; the appellate
Court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled
to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence; the
appellate Court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal,
after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider
whether the view taken by the trial Court is a plausible
view which could have been taken on the basis of the
evidence on record; if the view taken is a plausible view,
the appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal
on the ground that another view was also possible; and
the appellate Court can interfere with the order of
acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59966
CRL.A No. 986 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010239982022
conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the
evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other
conclusion was possible. The interference by an appellate
Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by
the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised
only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent
perversity; the same is based on a misreading/omission to
consider material evidence on record; and that no two
reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent
with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence
available on record.
9. I have examined the materials place before this
court. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has
examined nine witnesses as PW1 to 9 and got marked 21
documents as exhibits P1 to P21. PWs1 to 3 are said to be
the eye-witnesses. PW1-Prakash said to be the
complainant, has deposed that on 7.11.2016 at 11.00 am,
he was proceeding in a jeep from Golithotu of Uppinangadi
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59966
CRL.A No. 986 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010239982022
on Bangalore-Mangalore Highway, along with other
inmates. When the vehicle reached Bedrodi of Bajathur
village, one car overtook their Jeep and dashed against
the motorbike coming from the opposite side. One lady
was the pillion rider of the said motor vehicle. Both fell
down and the car capsized towards the right side. He
parked his jeep and went to the spot of accident. Sri
Shivanand, the rider of the motorcycle, was acquainted to
him. The pillion rider of the motorcycle was the sister of
said Shivananda. They were not in a position to talk.
Therefore, they were shifted to Puttur Hospital in an
ambulance. The inmates of the car had also sustained
injuries. Thereafter, he came to know about the death of
rider and pillion Rider of the motorcycle. The accident
occurred since the driver of the car drove the same in high
speed and in rash and negligent manner. Then he lodged
the complaint to the police as per Exhibit P1.
10. PW2-Shekhar Gowda has deposed that on
7.11.2016 between 11.00 and 11:30 am, he was in his
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59966
CRL.A No. 986 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010239982022
shop situated at Bedrodi. PW3-Vinod was also with him. At
that time, a car was heading towards Mangaluru. At the
same time, a bike was heading towards Bengaluru. The
car hit the motorcycle and the accident took place. The
car capsized and the inmates of the car sustained injuries.
The rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries and
were shifted to hospital. He identified the photographs of
the vehicles involved in accident marked as Exhibits P4 to
P7. The accused was the driver at the time of the accident.
11. PW3-Vinod Gowda has deposed that on
7.11.2016, he was with PW2 near Bedrodi. At that time,
the offending car was proceeding from Bangalore towards
Mangalore. The motorbike were heading towards
Bangalore. There was a head-on collision between these
two vehicles and the car capsized towards the right side of
the road and both bike rider and pillion rider sustained
grievous injuries in the accident. The injured were shifted
to hospital. Photographs of the vehicle involved in the
accident were identified by him.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59966
CRL.A No. 986 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010239982022
12. PW4-Subhashini has deposed that the accused is
husband and accused was driving the car at the time of
accident. She has deposed as to the accident, however,
she has not deposed as to the rash and negligent act on
the part of the accused. She has been treated as hostile
witness and cross-examined by the prosecution.
13. PW5-Shivraj has deposed as the panchanama as
per Exhibits P2 and P3 and the photographs Exhibit P4 to
P7.
14. PW6-Sridhar Rao, Inspector of Motor Vehicles
has deposed as to the inspection of vehicles involved in
the accident and issuance of report as per Exhibit P18.
15. PW7-Lohith is the owner of the car, has deposed
that at the time of accident, his elder brother was the
driver of the car.
16. PW8-Dhamesh and PW9-Mahesh Prasad Police
Officials, have deposed as to their respective investigation.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59966
CRL.A No. 986 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010239982022
17. During the course of cross-examination of PW1,
he has clearly admitted that he was sitting in the backside
of the jeep and totally 10 passengers were travelling in the
jeep. After the accident, by the time he went to the spot
people had already gathered there. Further, he has
deposited that he has not given any statement to the
police. He has also admitted that he do not know as to
who is the scribe of Exhibit P1.
18. PW2 has deposed that the accident took place
about 180 meters away from his shop. The accident spot
is not visible from his shop. The same has been explained
in Exhibit P3 mahazar. Further, he has clearly admitted
that he has visited the spot after the accident, and he has
not given any statement to the police.
19. PW3 has also admitted as to the accident took
place around 100 metres away from the shop where he
was sitting. PW4 has not supported the case of
prosecution.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59966
CRL.A No. 986 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010239982022
20. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record,
the trial Court has acquitted the accused. On
appreciation, re-examination and reconsideration of the
entire evidence and record, I do not find any legal or
factual error to interfere with the impugned judgment of
acquittal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and also keeping in mind the aforestated decisions of
Hon'ble Supreme Court, I answer Point No.1 in the
negative.
Regarding Point No.2:
21. For the reasons of afore, I proceed to pass the
following:
O R D E R
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
LNN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77