Hostile eyewitness testimonies and hearsay evidence cannot sustain a conviction for rash and negligent driving.

On March 31, 2016, a collision occurred between a car (MP-09 CL 3477) and a truck (MP N 5996) near Ambada Junction on a highway, resulting in the car catching fire and the death of four occupants.

The prosecution alleged the accident was caused by the truck driver’s negligence in crossing the road without looking.

Following an investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the trial court, vide order dated September 7, 2022, acquitted the respondent of charges under Section 304-A of the IPC and Sections 119/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The State subsequently filed an application for leave to appeal against this acquittal.

1. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through cogent and reliable evidence.

2. Whether the findings of the trial court regarding the acquittal were perverse, erroneous, or contrary to the law, justifying interference by the appellate court under Section 378 of the CrPC.

The court primarily applied Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (causing death by negligence) and Sections 117, 119, 177, 146, and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023), which mandates that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal if the trial court’s view is a "possible view".

Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), emphasizing that interference is only warranted in cases of patent perversity or misreading of material evidence.

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case suffered from a total lack of credible evidence. Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3) turned hostile, stating instead that the truck was stationary and the car struck it rashly.

The High Court noted that PW-4 provided only inadmissible hearsay testimony, and PW-6 failed to identify the correct registration number of the offending vehicle during the mechanical inspection.

Crucially, no witness identified the respondent as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident.

Applying the H.D. Sundara doctrine, the Court reasoned that since the trial court's appreciation of the evidence was legally plausible and the prosecution failed to prove the element of "rash or negligent act" by the accused, there were no grounds to categorize the acquittal as perverse or illegal.

The Court dismissed I.A. No. 113/2023 seeking leave to appeal and, accordingly, dismissed the criminal appeal, affirming the acquittal of the respondent.