Dismissed¶58

State of Karnataka v. K Rudregowda

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2025CRL.A/1189/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rash and negligent driving — KSRTC bus (Regn. KA-13 F 739) accident near Guru Theatre Bridge, Hassan on 18.02.2004; grievous injuries to PW1 (injured-cum-complainant); PWs.4 and 5 asleep at the time of accident; PWs.2 and 3 denied rashness; Ex.P4 spot panchanama showed no road hump; State appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) CrPC against acquittal dismissed; acquittal under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and Section 134(b) read with Section 187 MV Act confirmed; respondent served but unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

PW2 deposed that she does not know how PW1 sustained injuries, and PWs.2 and 3 denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. ¶51

State of Karnataka Vs K Rudregowda — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order dated 7-7-2015 in Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2013 acquitting the respondent/accused should be set aside and the accused convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and Section 134(b) read with Section 187 MV Act. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

The First Appellate Court rightly arrived at its conclusion and rightly interfered with the trial Court's judgment of conviction and order on sentence; no interference is called for by this Court.

¶57

Ratio / Principle

PW2 deposed that she does not know how PW1 sustained injuries, and PWs.2 and 3 denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused.

¶51

Key takeaways

Though said to be eyewitnesses, PWs.4 and 5 were sleeping at the time of the accident, and their evidence shows they were incapable of saying whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the accused.ratio¶52
Ex.P4, the spot panchanama, does not reveal the existence of a road hump at the alleged place of accident; accordingly, the question of the accused jumping the road hump does not arise.ratio¶57
The State's appeal stands dismissed and the acquittal of the respondent/accused by the judgment dated 07.07.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2013 is confirmed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

State appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C. against acquittal — dismissed; acquittal confirmed. The trial Court had convicted the KSRTC bus driver for offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and Section 134(b) read with Section 187 MV Act (fines of Rs.1,000/- each and Rs.500/- with default sentences); the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2013 set aside the conviction and acquitted him. On the High Court's review: PW2 did not know how PW1 sustained his injuries; PWs.2 and 3 denied any rash or negligent driving; PWs.4 and 5, though cited as eyewitnesses, were asleep when the accident occurred and could not speak to rashness; and Ex.P4, the spot panchanama, disclosed no road hump at the alleged spot, so the theory of the bus jumping a road hump did not arise. Concluding that the First Appellate Court had rightly interfered with the conviction and sentence, the Court (Venkatesh Naik T, J.) dismissed the State's appeal and confirmed the acquittal dated 07.07.2015.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:34604 CRL.A No. 1189 of 2015

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1189 OF 2015 (A)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HASSAN TRAFFIC POLICE-573 201.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, H.C.G.P.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

K. RUDREGOWDA S/O. KALEGOWDA K.S.R.T.C. DRIVER JYOTHINAGARA HOUSING BOARD MIG, DOOR NO.3 CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶18

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 7-7-2015 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.90 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279 AND 338 OF THE I.P.C. AND UNDER SECTION 134(b) READ WITH SECTION 187 OF THE M.V. ACT.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:34604 CRL.A No. 1189 of 2015

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

The State has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment dated 07.07.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2013 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, acquitting the respondent/accused of the charges punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Section 134(b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶27

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 18.02.2004, at around 1:00 a.m., within the limits of Hassan Traffic Police Station of B.M. Road, the accused, being the driver of K.S.R.T.C. bus, bearing Registration No.KA-13 F 739, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, or likely to cause hurt so as to endanger the human life, near Guru Theatre Bridge, the accused jumped the bus on road hump, at that time, PW1, who was an in-

¶28

mate of the bus, fell down from the seat and sustained grievous injuries. After the accident, the accused did not stop the bus and he has not informed the said accident to

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:34604 CRL.A No. 1189 of 2015

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

the nearest Police Station. Hence, the complaint was lodged, which led to registration of an F.I.R. and investigation.

¶33

After charge, the trial Court recorded the plea of the accused for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, got examined in all seven witnesses as per PWs.1 to 7 and marked five documents at Exs.P1 to P5. The trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 134(b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with default sentences. Thus, being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2013 before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal filed by the accused and consequently,

¶34

set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court and thereby, acquitted

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:34604 CRL.A No. 1189 of 2015

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

the accused. Being aggrieved by the acquittal judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, the State has preferred this appeal.

¶39

Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader, has vehemently contended that the Sessions Judge has failed to see that the trial Court, after careful consideration of the evidence and material on record and after assigning valid reasons, had convicted and sentenced the accused for the aforesaid offences. The First Appellate Court has not properly assigned valid reasons for reversing the said judgment of the trial Court. He further contended that the injured-cum-complainant has categorically stated that the accused drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner on account of that, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. After the accident, the accused did not stop the bus up to a certain distance and he also failed to inform the concerned Police Station.

¶40

In view of evidence of PW1, the prosecution clearly establishes the offences committed by the accused.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34604 CRL.A No. 1189 of 2015

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Further, the oral evidence of PW1 stands corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 to 5. PWs.1 to 5 have unequivocally stated that the accused drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner though the road was being repaired and there was hump at the spot of the accident and the accused did not take any care and caution to slow down the bus, which resulted in accident. He submits that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶44

Notice issued to the respondent/accused is duly served, but he has remained absent. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment passed by the trial Court and also the First Appellate Court. The trial Court convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences on the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 5.

¶45

From perusal of oral testimony of PW1, it appears

¶46

that on the date of accident, he was sitting on the backseat of the bus. When the bus approached near Guru

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:34604 CRL.A No. 1189 of 2015

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Theatre at Hassan, the accused jumped the road hump and caused the accident. Due to the accident, PW1 sustained grievous injuries.

¶51

From perusal of oral testimony of PW2, she has deposed that she was sitting in the middle seat of the bus and she does not know how PW1 sustained injuries. PWs.2 and 3 have denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused.

¶52

Further, PWs.4 and 5 are said to be eyewitnesses to the accident. In their evidence, they have deposed that on the date of accident, they were proceeding to Bengaluru in Raja Hamsa bus, driven by the accused. However, the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 go to show that at the time of accident, they were sleeping. So, from the evidence of PWs.4 and 5, it clearly go to show that they are incapable to say, whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent on the part of the accused.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:34604 CRL.A No. 1189 of 2015

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Ex.P4 is the spot panchanama. The spot

¶57

panchanama does not reveal the existence of road hump on the alleged place of accident. Thus, the question of jumping the road hump does not arise. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion and rightly interfered with the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court. Hence, no interference is called for in this regard.

¶58

For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the State stands dismissed .

¶59

Consequently, the judgment dated 07.07.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2013 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, acquitting the respondent/accused of the charges punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Section 134(b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is hereby confirmed.

¶60

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:34604 CRL.A No. 1189 of 2015

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Registry is directed to send the records along with a

¶64

copy of this judgment to the trial Court, forthwith.

¶65

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶66