Dismissed¶45

State by Psi, v. Sunil Kumar

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2025CRL.A/2265/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; judge G Basavaraja; decided 14.11.2025; State appeal against acquittal in fatal motor vehicle accident case (Puttur, Dakshina Kannada); offences under Ss.279, 337, 304(A) IPC and 134(A&B) r/w 187 IMV Act; acquittal upheld for want of eyewitness testimony on rashness/negligence; appeal dismissed; C.C.No.722/2022; leave under S.378(1)(3) Cr.P.C./S.419(1)(3) BNSS; no monetary quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

On a perusal of the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts, and this court finds no error or illegality in the acquittal judgment. ¶37

State by Psi, Vs Sunil Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46838 CRL.A No. 2265 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2265 OF 2025 (A)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

STATE BY PSI, PUTTUR TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-1.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY.R., HCGP)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SUNIL KUMAR S/O MUNSI DHOBI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O WARD NO.8, JAYNAGAR ROAD, PURNA NAGAR VILLAGE, KODARMA POST AND TALUK JHARKHAND STATE - 834 008.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CRL.A FILED U/S 378(1)(3) CR.PC (FILED U/S 419(1)(3) BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE PP AND ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO (1) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46838 CRL.A No. 2265 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

10.07.2025 PASSED IN C.C.NO.722/2022 PASSED BY THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND A.C.J.M AT PUTTUR D.K AND THEREBY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279, 304(A) OF IPC AND SEC.134 (A) (B) R/W 187 OF INDIAN MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & A.C.J.M., Puttur in C.C.No.722 of 2022 dated 10.07.2025.

¶23

The brief facts of the case leading to this appeal

¶24

are that the PSI, Puttur Traffic Police have submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC and Sections 134 (A & B) r/w 187 of IMV Act. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 18.06.2022 at 12.15 p.m., the accused drove his car bearing registration umber KA-26-A-7351 in

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46838 CRL.A No. 2265 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

Mangaluru-Bengaluru State Highway NH-75 from

¶28

Uppinangady towards Perne and when he reached Perne, he tried to overtake the two wheeler bearing registration number KA-19-EE-8362 being ridden by CW-2 and saw an

¶29

on-coming car and suddenly took to the left and hit the scooter and scooter rider fell to the left side of the road. Pillion rider of the scooter fell on the road and left tyre of the lorry went on her head. She suffered severe injuries to her face. She was taken to Puttur Government Hospital where she succumbed to the injuries. CW-2 suffered simple injuries. Accused did not stop the vehicle nor took the injured to the hospital nor informed about the accident

¶30

to the police. Thus, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC and Sections 134 (A & B) r/w 187 of IMV Act.

¶31

After filing the charge-sheet, case was

¶32

registered in C.C.No.722 of 2022. After appearance of the accused, the substance of plea was recorded. Accused pleaded 'not guilty' and faced the trial.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46838 CRL.A No. 2265 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

To prove the case of the accused, prosecution examined 15 witnesses as PWs-1 to 15 and 25 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P25. During the course of cross-examination of PW8, Ex.D1 is marked. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.

¶36

Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by this acquittal judgment, the State has preferred this appeal.

¶37

I have examined the materials placed before me. From a perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record, in accordance with the law and facts. The Trial Court has clearly held that the eye-witnesses have not stated anything about the rashness and negligence on the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:46838 CRL.A No. 2265 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

part of the accused. I do not find any error or illegality in

¶42

the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court. Hence,

¶43

I proceed to pass the following:

¶44