Dismissed¶¶48

Shrikant Chudiya Naik v. Jayaram H.R.

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2026CRL.A/100097/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench (NC: 2026:KHC-D:1651); CRL.A No.100097 of 2019; Justice Mohammad Nawaz; complainant's appeal under S.378(4) Cr.P.C. against JMFC Ankola acquittal dated 13.06.2018 in C.C.No.360/2011 for offences under Ss.279, 337, 338 IPC; KSRTC bus versus motorcycle accident of 08.01.2011 at Ankola; grievous injury to right leg; acquittal with benefit of doubt; delayed registration via private complaint dated 24.02.2011; absence of MLC intimation; assessment of PW.2, PW.3, PW.4 evidence; 'B' report and protest petition; complainant's own prosecution in Crime No.5/2011 and conviction in C.C.No.123/2011; acquittal upheld; appeal dismissed on 05.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

There is no material to show that any MLC intimation was sent to the police station, so as to know the cause of the accident. ¶¶37

Shrikant Chudiya Naik Vs Jayaram H.R. — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquittal of the respondent/accused by the JMFC, Ankola in Criminal Case No.360/2011 calls for interference, i.e., whether the complainant's appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. should result in the accused being punished for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC.

¶¶17

Court's answer

There is no material to show that any MLC intimation was sent to the police station, so as to know the cause of the accident.

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

PW.2, the auto driver who supported the prosecution case, deposed in cross-examination that when he went to the spot, the bus was already parked, weakening his support to the prosecution.

¶¶37

Key takeaways

PW.3 admitted in cross-examination that he had offered surety and given evidence in several cases, and that he had not gone near the victim; though several persons were present at the spot, none of them were examined by the prosecution.ratio¶¶41
PW.4 reached the spot only after the accident had already occurred; hence his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution.ratio¶¶41
It is a relevant circumstance that the police filed a 'B' report after investigation, and that a case was registered against the complainant himself for rash and negligent driving in Crime No.5/2011 with a charge sheet filed against him, he having been convicted in Criminal Case No.123/2011.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under S.378(4) Cr.P.C. 1973 by the injured complainant against acquittal — Accident of 08.01.2011 at about 12.45 p.m. in which the KSRTC bus (KA:25:F-2259), allegedly driven in a zigzag manner, hit the complainant's motorcycle (KA:30:Q-616) on Kitturu Channamma road, causing grievous injury to his right leg; accused tried for offences under Ss.279, 337 and 338 IPC. No case was registered immediately; the complainant filed a private complaint received by PW.6-PSI on 24.02.2011. No MLC intimation was sent to the police from the hospital; PW.2 (auto driver) admitted in cross-examination that the bus was already parked when he reached the spot; PW.3, a repeat surety-witness, did not go near the victim and other bystanders were not examined; PW.4 arrived after the accident. Police had filed a 'B' report challenged by protest petition; the complainant himself was prosecuted for rash and negligent driving (Crime No.5/2011) and convicted in C.C.No.123/2011. Held: the acquittal with benefit of doubt does not call for interference. Appeal dismissed (Mohammad Nawaz J., Dharwad Bench, 05.02.2026).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1651 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100097 OF 2019 (A)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRIKANT CHUDIYA NAIK AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. BOBRUWADA, TQ. ANKOLA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581314.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI.VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

JAYARAM H.R. AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. BUS DRIVER, R/O. HONNALLI @ HOSAHALLI, MALAVALL, DIST. MANDYA-571606.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI.G.S. SAVADATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI M KANKUPPI Date: 2026.02.10 10:40:49 +0530

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.P.C. 1973, PRAYING THAT THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.06.2018 IN C.C.NO.360/2011 PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT, ANKOLA MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL THEREBY PUNISHING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337 AND 338 OF IPC, IN THE ENDS OF PROMOTING JUSTICE.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1651 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2019

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is preferred by the complainant feeling aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned JMFC, Ankola, in Criminal Case No.360/2011 dated 13.06.2018.

¶25

Accused was tried for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly causing an accident by driving the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA:25:F-2259 in a rash and negligent manner and hitting against the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA:30:Q-616 of the complainant/injured in which, he sustained grievous injuries to his right leg.

¶26

The learned Magistrate on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution acquitted the accused vide impugned judgment, extending benefit of doubt.

¶27

The accident took place on 08.01.2011 at about 12.45p.m. when the complainant was riding the motorcycle on

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1651 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2019

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Kitturu Channamma road. The accused/driver of the KSRTC bus in question was driving the bus from Manjuguni towards Ankola. It is alleged that the driver drove the bus in a zigzag manner, lost control and hit against the motorcycle, due to which the complainant fell down from the motorcycle and the front wheel of the bus ran over his leg. The people who gathered at the spot helped the complainant to send him to Arya Medical Hospital, Ankola, in the autorikshaw of one Jagannath Pokka Gouda (PW.2). Further, the complainant was shifted to Tejaswini Hospital at Mangalore for higher treatment.

¶31

Even though the accident took place on 08.01.2011, there was no case registered immediately. According to the complainant/injured, he informed PW.2 to lodge a complaint. According to PW.2, he went and informed the police regarding the incident, who assured to proceed to the spot. However, no case was registered against the accused. PW.1 has stated that he took treatment in the hospital as an inpatient till 31.01.2011 and thereafter he went

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1651 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2019

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

and enquired about registration of the case and since no case was registered, he filed a private complaint.

¶36

PW.6-PSI has deposed that he received the private complaint on 24.02.2011 and on that basis, he registered a case against the accused.

¶37

Though, it is the case of complainant that immediately he was shifted to the hospital, there is no material to show that any MLC intimation was sent to the police station from the hospital, so as to know the cause of the accident. PW.2 being the auto driver, though supported the case of prosecution stating that the accident was due to the fault of the accused, in the cross-examination he has deposed that when he went to the spot, for the first time, the bus was already parked.

¶38

The learned counsel for the complainant contended that even if the evidence of PW.2 is not acceptable, the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 goes to show that the accident was on account of the fault of accused.

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1651 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2019

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

I have perused the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4. PW.3 in his cross-examination has admitted that he has offered surety and given evidence in several cases. From his evidence, it can be seen that several persons were present at the spot and they helped the injured to go to the hospital by engaging the autorikshaw, whereas he admitted that he has not gone near the victim. Though, several persons were present, none of them have been examined by the prosecution. The evidence of PW.4 goes to show that by the time he reached the spot, the accident had already occurred. Hence, his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution.

¶42

In this case, the police after conducting investigation have filed ‘B’ report, which was challenged by the complainant by filing a protest petition. It is relevant to mention that a case was registered against the complainant for rash and negligent driving, in Crime No.5/2011 and the police have filed charge sheet against him. The same is deposed by PW.6. The learned Magistrate has observed in his judgment that a case is registered against the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1651 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2019

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

complainant in Criminal Case No.123/2011 and he is convicted in the said case.

¶47

In the above facts and circumstances, the judgment of acquittal dated 13.06.2018 passed by the learned JMFC, Ankola in Crl.Case No.360/2011 does not call for interference.

¶48

The Appeal is dismissed.

¶49

SD/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶50

kmv

¶51

CT:PA

Shrikant Chudiya Naik v. Jayaram H.R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikant Chudiya Naik v. Jayaram H.R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Karnataka Vs Laxman S/O Irappa Pattar

Yogesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sudhakar @ Sudha Vs the State of Karnataka

Goudappagouda Karigouda Patil Vs Siddappa Basavanneppa Hunasannavar

Smt.Jubeda W/O Mardansab Vadavi Vs the State of Karnataka

Srinath Kulkarni Vs State of Karnataka