STATE OF KARNATAKA vs PRAVEENA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59189
CRL.A No. 1190 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010352082017




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1190 OF 2017 (A)

BETWEEN:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PSI, UDUPI TRAFFIC P.S.,
UDUPI DISTRICT,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 01
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)







AND:

1. PRAVEENA
S/O KRISHNA POOJARY
AGE: 26 YEARS,
R/AT BAILUMANE, MADYASTARA THOTA
PARAMPALLI VILLAGE,
UDUPI TALUK - 576101.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI.,ADVOCATE)





Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
of Karnataka

CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(1) & (3) CR.P.C BY THE STATE P.P.
FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 4.1.2017
PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
UDUPI IN C.C.NO.931/2013 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279,304A OF IPC AND SEC.66 R/W
192(a) OF IMV ACT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59189
CRL.A No. 1190 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010352082017



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

State has preferred the appeal against the judgment of
acquittal dated 04.01.2017 passed in CC No.931 of 2013 by the
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi (for short, the “trial
Court”).
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Police
Sub-Inspector, Traffic Police Station, Udupi, filed charge-sheet
against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections,
279, 304A of Indian Penal Code and Section 134(a)(b) read
with 187 and Section 66 read with 192(a) of Indian Motor
Vehicles Act.
3. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 27.11.2012 at
about 10.00 pm, the accused being the driver of the bus
bearing Registration No.KA-20/B-8787, drove the same in a
rash and negligent manner from Brahmavara towards Udupi
and when the bus reached near NH-66, opposite to Abharana
Motors, Nittur, he dashed to the motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-13/U-2059, which was being ridden slowly by one Suraj
S, Muchandikar. Resultantly, the rider of the motorcycle fell

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59189
CRL.A No. 1190 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010352082017



and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Further,
it is alleged that after the accident, the accused failed to shift
the deceased to the hospital for treatment. Thus, the accused
has committed the alleged offences.
4. After filing the charge-sheet, case was registered in
CC No.931 of 2013, accused appeared before the Court and
enlarged on bail. Substance of plea was recorded and accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt
of the accused, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses as
PWs1 to 14 and marked 19 documents as Exhibits P1 to P19.
On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the
accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. Accused
has totally denied the evidence 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 the impugned
Judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.
5. Sri K Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for the
appellant-State, submits that the Judgment of acquittal passed
by the trial Court is contrary to law, facts of the case and

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59189
CRL.A No. 1190 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010352082017



evidence on record. He also submits that the reasons assigned
by the Court below while passing the impugned Judgment of
acquittal is erroneous and improper and hence it has reached a
wrong conclusion resulting in substantial miscarriage of justice.
Further, he would submit that the trial Court has failed to
appreciate the evidence of PW1, who is the complainant and
eye-witness. Though he has turned hostile, he has supported
the case of the prosecution. Further, he submits that the trial
Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW6 who is
another eye witness, who has supported the case of the
prosecution. The trial Court has also failed to appreciate the
evidence of PW7-Inspector of Motor Vehicles who has
supported the case of the prosecution.
6. As against this, Sri Veeranna G. Tigadi, learned
Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that though
the PW6 has deposed in his evidence supporting the case of the
prosecution, the trial Court has properly appreciated the
evidence on record in its proper perspective. He would submit
that on hearing the arguments, the trial Court has acquitted the
accused for the offence under Sections 279, 304A and 66 read

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59189
CRL.A No. 1190 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010352082017



with 192 of MV Act, convicted the accused for offence under
Section 134(a)(b) IPC read with section 184 of Motor Vehicles
Act and sentenced to pay fine offer Rs.500/-. The accused has
paid the fine and has not challenged the order of conviction for
offence under Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. The State has
preferred this appeal against the Judgment of acquittal under
Section is 279, 304A of IPC and Section 66 read with 192(a) of
Motor Vehicles Act. On all these grounds, it is sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
7. I have examined the materials placed before this
Court. Having given anxious considerations to the submissions
advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the
following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the state has made out a ground to
interfere with the impugned Judgment of
acquittal?
2. What order?
8. My answer to the above points are:
Point No.1: In the negative
Point No.2: As per final order

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59189
CRL.A No. 1190 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010352082017



Regarding Point No.1:
9. 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 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, 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

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59189
CRL.A No. 1190 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010352082017



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
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.
10. In the case on hand, to prove the guilt of the
accused the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses as PWs1 to
14 and marked 19 documents as Exhibits P1 to P19.
11. PW1-Nataraj is said to be the complainant and also
eye-witness. PW2-Gururaj Ganiga, PW3-Shamiullah, PW4-

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59189
CRL.A No. 1190 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010352082017



Vijaya, PW5-Balakrishna Shetty and PW6 Vijaya Jattanna, who
are said to be the eye-witnesses, have not supported the case
of the prosecution. Even in their cross-examination made by
the prosecution after treating them as hostile witnesses with
the permission of the Court, the prosecution has failed to elicit
anything from their mouth. PW7-Sridhar Rao N, is the Motor
Vehicles Inspector, who has examined the vehicles involved in
the accident and issued report as Exhibit P12. PW8-Keshav
Gowda, Police Officer has deposed as to his part of
investigation. PW9-Dinesh Poojari, the GPA holder of the Bus,
has deposed that Praveen was the driver of the bus as on the
date of the accident. PW10-Dr. Madhusudan Naik, has deposed
as to issuance of postmortem report as per Exhibit P17. PW11-
Rohit has deposed as to handing over of the dead body to the
father of the deceased. PW12-Amanullah A, Police Inspector,
has deposed as to his part of investigation. PW13-
Thimmegowda, the RC holder of the two-wheeler has deposed
that he has purchased the said two-wheeler from Mohammed
Umar and the name in the RC book has not been changed.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59189
CRL.A No. 1190 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010352082017



PW14, the Investigating Officer, has deposed as to his part of
investigation.
12. On a careful examination of the entire evidence on
record, the trial Court at paragraphs 20 and 21 of its judgment,
has observed as under:

"20. On perusal of evidence of prosecution
witnesses PW1 is informant and eye witness. He turned
hostile to the case of prosecution. Later in cross-
examination he admitted all the suggestions of learned
APP. But in cross-examination of defence counsel, he
deposed that he came to know about the accident from
the noise of accident and he came to place of accident
after two minutes. This witness deposed divergently at
different stages and he admitted in his evidence that he
was not present at the time of accident. Hence his
evidence cannot be reliable. Another eye witness who
supported the case of prosecution is PW6. In his cross-
examination he deposed that he came to know about the
accident from the noise and he failed to identify the place
where accident was occurred. From the admission made
by this witness in his cross- examination, it is clear that
he came to know about the accident from the noise and
he is not eye witness. Hence his evidence is also not
reliable. The other eye witnesses examined by the
prosecution turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59189
CRL.A No. 1190 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010352082017



21. PWs 4 and 5 are witnesses to the Ex.P2.
According to prosecution, Ex.P2 and Ex.p19 accident
occurred on the left side of Udupi Brahmavara road, while
accused was trying to overtake another vehicle. PWs 4
and 5 supported the case of prosecution and deposed that
in their presence, Ex.P2 was drew by the police. But in
their cross-examination they deposed that they don’t
know the contents of Ex.P2 and they signed Ex.P2 on the
instigation of others. Mere production of documents itself
is not sufficient. Witnesses to the document has to speak
about the contents of the same. Even though prosecution
case is believed, no traces or break marks are visible on
the road. In natural course, if accident occurred as per
prosecution case and bus dragged two wheeler for some
distance, definitely there will be traces on the road. But in
the present case, no such traces on road, mere existence
of glass pieces near the divider itself is not sufficient to
construe that, accident was occurred at right side of
Brahmavara Udupi road. Hence Ex.P2 and P19 are not
believable. PW5 evidence is contradictory to Ex.p2. PW5
in his cross- examination deposed that accident was
occurred at right side of Udupi Kundapura road which
means in opposite side of place shown in Ex.P2 and P19."
13. On re-examination, re-appreciation and
reconsideration of the entire material on record, I do not find
any legal or factual error in the impugned Judgment passed by
the trial Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and also relying on the decisions of the Apex Court stated

supra, I answer Point No.1 in the negative.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59189
CRL.A No. 1190 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010352082017



Regarding Point No.2:
For the reasons 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.: 64