Facts
The prosecution alleged that on 4 April 2013, the respondent, driving a crane, negligently struck cyclist Obayya Poojary from behind on the Venur–Moodbidri State Highway, causing fatal injuries.
Source reference: p. 2–3, para. 3–4The respondent was charged under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Source reference: p. 2–3, para. 3–4The prosecution examined ten witnesses; the respondent denied the allegations and adduced defence evidence.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5The Trial Court acquitted him, and the State appealed against that judgment.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6Issues
Whether the State had established grounds to interfere with the Trial Court’s acquittal.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 9Law Applied
The appeal was brought under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the alleged offences were under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.
Source reference: p. 1–2Relying on Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2025) 5 SCC 433; Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149; Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415; and H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581, the Court stated that an appellate court may reappreciate the evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but must respect the reinforced presumption of innocence.
Source reference: p. 5–7, para. 11If the Trial Court’s view is a possible view on the evidence, acquittal cannot be reversed merely because another view is available; interference is warranted where the acquittal is perverse, material evidence has been misread or omitted, and guilt is the only reasonable conclusion.
Source reference: p. 5–7, para. 11Reasoning
The Court found that the prosecution’s case depended principally on the purported eyewitnesses, whose accounts were inconsistent.
Source reference: p. 12–13, para. 21PW1’s evidence raised doubt about whether he had witnessed the collision, and he said he found the deceased in a drainage. PW4’s account that the deceased was beneath the crane on the road conflicted with this version; PW4 also denied making a statement that was marked as defence evidence.
Source reference: p. 12–13, para. 21The witnesses’ estimates of the crane’s speed also differed, while a video clip produced by the defence showed a maximum speed of 25 km/h, according to the Trial Court’s assessment.
Source reference: p. 14, para. 22On reappreciating the evidence, the High Court found no legal or factual error in the Trial Court’s conclusion.
Source reference: p. 14, para. 23Holding
The Court answered the issue in the negative, holding that the State had not shown grounds to interfere with the acquittal.
The appeal was dismissed.
Source reference: p. 15, para. 24Acts & Sections Cited
3 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732
Indian Penal Code, 18601
Original Court PDF
STATE OF KARNATAKAvsSRI CHUKENDRA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
