High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal appeal preferring by the State against an order of acquittal in a motor vehicle accident case involving rash and negligent driving under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC, holding the appellate court’s view was plausible.
Criminal appeal dismissed; conviction set aside by Fast Track Court and acquittal confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.866 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TALAKADU POLICE STATION. ... APPELLANT
[BY SMT. LEENA C. SHIVAPURMATH, HCGP]
AND:
S. PUTTASWAMY S/O SHIVAMALLU AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O. KUNTOORU VILLAGE KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT. … RESPONDENT
[BY SRI. B. KESHAVAMURTHY, ADVOCATE]
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.11.2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.83/2007 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-V, MYSORE BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2007 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, T.NARASIPURA IN C.C. NO.360/2005CONVICTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 279 AND 304(A) OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the State, preferred against the impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 02.11.2009 passed by the Fast Track Court-V at Mysuru, in Crl.A. No.83/2007, whereby the Fast Track Court allowed the appeal preferred by the accused/respondent and set aside the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2007 in C.C. No.360/2005 passed by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC at T.Narasipura and acquitted him of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC.
3
bicycle by name Mallaraju sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries while undergoing treatment at K.R. Hospital, Mysuru.
appearing for the State would contend that the trial Court having appreciated the entire evidence on record
4
has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the accused. The trial Court has taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.5-eyewitness as well as the spotmahazar Ex.P6. She contends that the appellate Court without properly appreciating the said evidence on record and the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate, has erroneously acquitted the accused. It is her contention that the accused has not disputed that he was not driving the tractor at the time of incident and in
view of the evidence of P.W.5, the prosecution has established the accusation made against him.
not given any explanation for the cause of accident and the spot mahazar-Ex.P6 goes to show that the accident has occurred on the right side of the road, hence, it is proved that the accused has gone to the extreme right side of the road and caused the accident.
5
6
not exhibited. Hence, the appellate Court proceeded to set aside the impugned Judgment passed by the trial Court and acquitted the accused.
7
and the school is situated on the left side. He has stated that at the time of accident, he was also riding a bicycle and he was about 10 ft. behind the place of occurrence. He has admitted that since he was behind the tractor, he was not aware as to what happened in front of the tractor. He has further stated that when he went to the spot, there were already 60-65 boys and teachers present at the spot.
8
case of the prosecution. In fact, P.W.3 has stated that the accident was on account of fault of the rider of the cycle.
9
Officer has not been examined. Hence, the reasons assigned by the appellate Court is plausible.
The view taken by the appellate Court being a plausible view, no interference is called for. Hence, Criminal
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Ksm*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a plausible view of law justification for acquittal warrants interference in a criminal appeal against acquittal.
Whether reliance on unexhibited sketch and unexamined investigation officer vitiates the conviction.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
STATE OF KARNATAKA
S. PUTTASWAMY
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
