STATE OF KARNATAKA vs SIDDIQ KHAN
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56164
CRL.A No. 1189 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010490752017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1189 OF 2017 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY PADUBIDRI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 01.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
AND:
SIDDIQ KHAN,
SON OF ABID KHAN,
R/AT 782, 2ND STAGE,
RAJEEVANAGAR,
MYSURU - 570 001.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
(BY SRI. NAGARAJUN J., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 1.2.2017
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
UDUPI IN C.C.NO.1604/2014 - ACQUITTING THE
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56164
CRL.A No. 1189 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010490752017
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279, 338
AND 304(A) OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 dated 01.02.2017, passed by the
learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi (for
short "the Trial Court") in C.C.No.1604/2014.
2. Parties are referred to the same rank, what
they had before the Trial court.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that,
the Police Sub-Inspector, Padubidri Police Station
submitted a charge sheet against the accused for the
commission of offence under Sections 279, 338 and 304A
IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 03.06.2014 at
about 08.20 a.m. near Kalyani Bar and Restaurant at
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56164
CRL.A No. 1189 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010490752017
Bada, Yermal Village, Udupi Taluk and District, accused
being the driver of Renault Duster SUV, bearing
registration No.KA 12P 7549, drove the same from
Mangaluru towards Udupi on National Highway 66 in a
rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life
and dashed against rickshaw bearing registration No. KA
20 B 2165, thereafter, dashed against pedestrian by name
Smt.Leelavathi, then dashed against a compound wall of
Kalyani Park and restaurant, rod and cement sheets, and
thereafter also dashed to the hind portion of the Estylo car
bearing registration No. MH 01 MR 1429, as a result of
which, inmates of Renault Duster car i.e. CW6, Pemida
Khan and daughter of CW7 by name Kumari Afisa aged 8
years sustained grievous injuries and Smt. Leelavathi
sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Due to
the accident rickshaw, Estylo car, compound wall of
Kalyani bar, rod, cement sheets were damaged. Thus, the
accused has committed the alleged offences.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56164
CRL.A No. 1189 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010490752017
4. After taking cognizance, and filing the charge
sheet case was registered in C.C. No.1604/2014. Accused
appeared before the court and enlarged on bail. The
substance of accusation was recorded. Accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the case of the prosecution, in all, 12
witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW.12 and 24
documents were marked as Exhibit P1 to P24. The
statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was
recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence of
prosecution witnesses. However he did not choose to lead
any defence evidence on his behalf.
6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, trial
Court has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the
judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.
7. The learned High Court Government Pleader,
Sri. Nageshwarappa submits that the impugned judgment
and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56164
CRL.A No. 1189 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010490752017
contrary to law, facts of the case and evidence on record.
The reasons assigned by the trial court while passing the
impugned judgment are erroneous, improper, hence, it
has reached a wrong conclusion resulting in substantial
miscarriage of justice. The trial Court has failed to
appreciate the evidence of PW1, who being the
eyewitness, has specifically deposed that the manner in
which the accident took place and the accused caused
serious injury to the deceased and he was responsible for
the death of deceased Leelavathi. The trial Court has also
failed to appreciate the evidence of PW2 Rickshaw driver
and the evidence of PW3, Motor Vehicle Inspector, and
sought to allow this appeal.
8. As against this, the learned counsel for the
respondent would submit that the trial court has properly
appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law
Absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56164
CRL.A No. 1189 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010490752017
impugned judgment of acquittal and sought for dismissal
of the appeal.
9. Having heard the arguments on both sides and
on perusal of the materials placed on record, the following
points would arise for my consideration:
i) "Whether the State has made out of
grounds to interfere with the impugned
judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court ?
ii) What Order?
10. My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: in the Negative
Point No.2: as per the final Order
11. Before appreciating the evidence on record, it
is necessary to mention herein to the decision of Hon'ble
Apex Court as to the scope of interfering with judgments
of acquittal as in the case of CONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56164
CRL.A No. 1189 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010490752017
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
KARNATAKA reported in (2007)4 SCC 415; and H.D.
SUNDARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2023)9
SCC 581. The principles governing exercise of appellate
jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against judgment
of acquittal under section 378 of Code of Criminal
Procedure are, the 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; and
after re-appreciating the evidence, 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 possible view, the appellate
court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground
that another view was also possible; and the appellate
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56164
CRL.A No. 1189 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010490752017
court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it
comes to a finding that the only 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.
12. I have carefully examined the materials placed
before this court. To prove the guilt of the accused,
prosecution has examined 12 witnesses as PW1 to PW12.
Documents are marked as Exhibits P1 to P12.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56164
CRL.A No. 1189 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010490752017
13. PW1 Laxmana Thingalaya is the first informant
who has given information as per Exhibit P1 and
eyewitness and also spot Mahazar witness. He has stated
about the accident that took place on 03.06.2014. The
accused being the driver of the Renault Duster SUV, drove
the same from Mangaluru towards Udupi in a rash and
negligent manner, while so driving rashly, dashed against
the compound wall of Kalyani Bar and Restaurant, dashed
hind portion of another car belonging to CW6 and also
dashed into one pedestrian who sustained grievous
injuries and died on the spot. But he has deposed that he
is unable to identify the person who drove the offending
vehicle at the time of accident. This witness is treated as
hostile witness. During the course of cross examination of
the witness with the permission of the Trial Court, the
Assistant Public Prosecutor, has not elicited any favourable
answers from him.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56164
CRL.A No. 1189 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010490752017
14. PW2 and PW3 are the eyewitnesses to the
incident, but they have not supported the case of the
prosecution. PW4 is the spot and seizure mahazar witness.
PW5 to 7 are injured and eyewitnesses, they have also not
supported the case of the prosecution. PW8 and PW9 are
the spot mahazar witnesses. PW10 and PW11 are the
Police Officers I.O. witnesses who have conducted
investigation and PW12 is the IMV Inspector.
15. On careful examination of the entire evidence
placed on record, this Court noticed that all material
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution.
The Trial Court has properly appreciated evidence on
record in accordance with law and acquitted the accused.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and also keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I do not find any
illegality, infirmity, or error committed by the Trial Court.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56164
CRL.A No. 1189 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010490752017
Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in Negative. In view of
the aforesaid discussion , I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
HR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8