Dismissed¶70

State of Karnataka, v. Mahammadali

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2025CRL.A/100085/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against acquittal; Section 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C.; Sections 279, 337 & 338 IPC; rash and negligent driving; mere high speed not rashness or negligence; injured eyewitnesses PW1 and PW3; KSRTC bus KA-25/F-3013 versus motorbike at Burchi on 19.4.2015; Dandeli Rural Police Crime No.15/2015; JMFC/Civil Judge Haliyal C.C.No.258/2015; plausible view in appeals against acquittal; State of Karnataka v. Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493; Crl.RP No.1004/2021; Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 A.C 562 (referred within quoted passage); negligence and rashness; foreseeability and proximity.

What did the court decide?

The injured eyewitnesses PW1 and PW3 failed to state from which direction the bus came and hit their motorbike, and further failed to identify the driver of the bus at the relevant point of time. ¶49

State of Karnataka, Vs Mahammadali — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 338 of IPC?

¶44

Court's answer

The injured eyewitnesses PW1 and PW3 failed to state from which direction the bus came and hit their motorbike, and further failed to identify the driver of the bus at the relevant point of time.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

Neither PW1 nor PW3 stated that the driver of the bus was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner; the prosecution therefore failed to connect the accused with rash or negligent driving.

¶49

Key takeaways

Applying the principles from this Court's decision in Crl.RP No.1004/2021 (which relied on State of Karnataka v. Satish, (1998) 8 SCC 493) that mere driving at high speed does not by itself establish rashness or negligence, the eyewitness evidence afforded no basis to hold the driver guilty of rash or negligent driving.ratio¶11
Since PW1 and PW3 failed to state that the driver drove the bus rashly or negligently, and considering that this is an appeal against acquittal, the view taken by the trial Court is a plausible view and the impugned judgment does not call for interference.ratio¶64
The point framed in the appeal — whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 338 of IPC — is answered in the affirmative.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

State of Karnataka's criminal appeal under S.378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C. seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.11.2016 passed by the JMFC Court, Haliyal in C.C.No.258/2015, whereby the accused, driver of KSRTC bus KA-25/F-3013, was acquitted of offences under Ss.279 & 338 IPC for allegedly driving rashly and negligently and dashing a motorbike at Burchi on 19.04.2015, causing grievous injuries to injured eyewitnesses PW1 and PW3. Held (Rajesh Rai K, J): the injured eyewitnesses failed to state the direction from which the bus came, failed to identify its driver, and did not state that he was driving rashly or negligently; applying the principle that mere high-speed driving does not by itself amount to rashness or negligence — as held by this Court in Crl.RP No.1004/2021, relying on State of Karnataka v. Satish, (1998) 8 SCC 493 — the view taken by the trial Court was a plausible view warranting no interference in an appeal against acquittal. Point answered in the affirmative; appeal dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7582 CRL.A No. 100085 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100085 OF 2017 (A)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, DANDELI RURAL POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MAHAMMADALI S/O. MAHAMMAD HUSSEN HANUMANAL, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER OF KSRTC, R/O. UPPINABETAGERI, TQ. DHARWAD.

¶14

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.06.13 14:11:49 +0530

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. B.N. JAMADAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 28.11.2016 PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT, HALIYAL IN C.C.NO. 258 OF 2015 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 28.11.2016 PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT, HALIYAL IN CC.NO. 258 OF 2015 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279 AND 338 OF IPC.

¶18

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7582 CRL.A No. 100085 of 2017

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

¶24

The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in CC No.258/2015, dated 28.11.2016, on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Halyal¹ , whereby the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 338 of IPC.

¶25

2. The factual matrix of the prosecution’s case is that, the injured i.e. Basavanneppa Babu Mallur (PW1) and his wife Smt.Sudarani Basavanneppa Mallur (PW3) were proceeding on their motorbike from Bailhongal to Ulavi Channabasaweshwar Temple on 19.4.2015 at about 10.30 a.m. When they reached the place called Burchi, the driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-25/F-3013 was driving the bus from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorbike of the complainant/PW1. Resultantly, PW1 and PW3 fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Later, they shifted to Govt. Hospital, Dandeli for the treatment. During the course of treatment, PW1 lodged the complaint against the driver of KSRTC bus on 19.4.2015 as per Ex.P1. On

¶26

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7582 CRL.A No. 100085 of 2017

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

the strength of Ex.P1, Dandeli Rural Police registered a case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of IPC in Crime No.15/2015 on 19.4.2015 as per Ex.P6. Subsequently, PW7-PSI of the said Police investigated the case and laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.

¶30

3. After securing the presence of the accused, the trial Court framed charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences. To prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution in total examined seven witnesses as PW1 to PW7 and got marked seven documents as per Ex.P1 to P7 before the trial Court.

¶31

4. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him. The said judgment of acquittal is challenged in this appeal by the State.

¶32

5. I have heard Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for the appellant/State, so also Sri. B.N. Jamadar, learned counsel for the respondent/accused. Perused the trial Court records.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7582 CRL.A No. 100085 of 2017

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

6. Learned HCGP vehemently contended that the trial Court grossly erred while acquitting the accused, despite the prosecution placed sufficient evidence to prove the charges leveled against the accused. She contended that the evidence of PW1 and PW3-injured eye witnesses to the incident, clearly proves that the accused being driver of KSRTC bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorbike of PW1, as a result, himself and PW3 sustained grievous injuries. She also contended that doctor-PW4, who examined the injured and issued Wound Certificate as per Ex.P3 and P4, deposed that PW1 and PW3 have sustained injuries on the relevant date and time in the road traffic accident. In such circumstance, the trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. Thus, she prays to allow the appeal.

¶37

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the

¶38

respondent/accused contended that the trial Court, after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record, passed a reasoned judgment, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. He contended that there are much infirmities and contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW3injured eye witnesses, who failed to state as to how and in

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7582 CRL.A No. 100085 of 2017

¶40

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

what manner the alleged accident took place. He further contended that both of these witnesses (PW1 and PW3) failed to state that on the relevant date and time, on which direction they were proceeding on their motorbike and also from which direction, the bus came and dashed to the motorbike. In such circumstance, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him. He also contended that this being an appeal against acquittal, if plausible view is taken by the trial Court, then the appellate Court shall not interfere in the said judgment as per law laid down by the Apex Court. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶43

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the documents available on record, the only point that would surface for my consideration in this appeal is:

¶44

“W hether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 338 of IPC?”

¶45

9. As could be gathered from the records, the accident

¶46

in question and sustaining of the injuries by PW1 and PW3 in

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7582 CRL.A No. 100085 of 2017

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

the said accident is not in dispute. However, to connect the accused for the same, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW3, the injured eyewitnesses. On perusal of their evidence, they have stated that on the relevant date and time, they were proceeding on their motorbike from Bailhongal to Ulavi Channabasaweshwara Temple, and when they reached the place called Burchi, KSRTC bus came from opposite direction with high speed and dashed to their motorbike. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, both of these witnesses have failed to state that from which direction, the bus came and hit their motorbike. Further, they also failed to identify the driver of the bus at that relevant point of time. Both of these witnesses have not stated as to whether the driver of the bus was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

¶50

10. This Court in Crl.RP No.1004/2021 held that mere driving the vehicle in high speed, itself cannot establish that he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. This Court, in the aforesaid case, by relying on judgment of the

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7582 CRL.A No. 100085 of 2017

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs Satish² has

¶55

held in paragraphs-17 and 18 as under:

¶56

“ 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Satish reported in (1998) 8 SCC 493 has settled the position of law that mere driving of vehicle in high speed neither amounts to negligence nor rashness in itself and has held in para 4 of the said judgment as under;

¶57

Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not be speak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur". There is evidence to show that immediately before the truck turned turtle, there was a big jerk. It is not explained as to whether the jerk was because of the uneven road or mechanical failure. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle had submitted his report. That report is not forthcoming from the record and the Inspector was not examined for reasons best known to the prosecution. This is a serious infirmity and lacuna in the prosecution case.”

¶58

Effectively, at this juncture I find it imperative to touch upon the nuances of understanding the term

¶59

2 (1998) 8 SCC 493

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7582 CRL.A No. 100085 of 2017

¶61

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

‘negligence’, negligence essentially is defined or rather understood in a rudimentary sense as a breach of duty. Meaning, an act of negligence must be coupled with willful omission of doing something which a prudent person would have done in similar circumstance. This breach of duty should lead to some kind of damage. Further, while ascertaining the degree of negligence, it is significant to ruminate on the ‘Principle of Foreseeability and Proximity’ as laid down by Lord Atkin in the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson reported in 1932 A.C 562. Additionally, let us take a moment to delve into comprehending and elucidate the conundrum that needs to be addressed: What amounts to rashness and negligence? Rashness innately implies to recklessness coupled with a state of conscious breach of duty to care where there exists a necessity of care i.e., negligence. Rashness and negligence are multi-faceted concepts which cannot be comprehended and interpreted in isolation, it significantly depends on facts and circumstances of each case. ”

¶64

11. Applying the principles enumerated in the above judgment to the facts and circumstances of the present case, since PW1 and PW3 failed to state that the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner, so also considering the aspect that this is an appeal against acquittal, I am of the considered view that the view taken by the trial Court is a plausible view and as such, the interference in the

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7582 CRL.A No. 100085 of 2017

¶66

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

impugned judgment does not call for. In that view of the matter, I answer point raised above in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

The appeal stands dismissed .

¶71