Karnataka HC Upholds Bus Driver’s Acquittal On Negligent-Driving Charges In Motorcyclist’s Death, Citing Unreliable Eyewitnesses And No Road Marks

The prosecution alleged that on 27 November 2012, the respondent drove a bus rashly and negligently, struck a motorcycle near Nittur, and caused the rider’s death; it also alleged that he failed to assist the injured rider after the collision.

The respondent was charged under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 134(a) and (b) read with 187, and Section 66 read with Section 192(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The trial court acquitted him of the offences challenged in the appeal.

The State appealed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The High Court noted that the respondent’s conviction and fine for an unchallenged offence were not in issue in this appeal.

In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, but the acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence. If the trial court’s view is plausible on the evidence, the appellate court must not substitute another possible view. Interference is warranted where the acquittal is patently perverse, rests on a misreading of or failure to consider material evidence, or where the evidence permits only a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court relied 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 offences forming the subject of the appeal were under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and Section 66 read with Section 192(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The High Court found no basis to displace the trial court’s evaluation of the prosecution evidence.

The witnesses presented as eyewitnesses either turned hostile or, on their own evidence, had learned of the accident from its sound and arrived afterward; their testimony therefore did not reliably establish the manner of the collision.

The trial court also had grounds to doubt the scene documents: witnesses to the sketch did not know its contents, and the absence of road traces or drag marks, together with conflicting evidence about the accident’s location, undermined the prosecution’s account.

Given these evidentiary weaknesses, the trial court’s view was plausible and did not meet the threshold for appellate interference.

Finding no legal or factual error in the acquittal, it dismissed the State’s appeal.