Dismissed¶58

Mr. Otto Peter Pereira v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2026CRL.A/1767/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; Justice M.G.S. Kamal; CRL.A No. 1767 of 2025; acquittal appeal by de-facto complainant Otto Peter Pereira against Kumar (accused driver); rash and negligent driving, lorry KA-09-C-0935 v. scooter KA-04-EU-5672; death of Shoba Olagavia Pereira; Ss.279, 304(A) IPC and 134(a)(b)/187 IMV Act; hostile eyewitness PW.2 Sreemanti Fernandes; indemnity bond Ex.P.9 unproved (author/owner not examined); acquittal upheld; appeal dismissed on 10.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

None; the acquittal of the accused (Respondent No.2) stands, the criminal appeal having been dismissed. ¶58

Mr. Otto Peter Pereira Vs State of Karnataka — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14334 CRL.A No. 1767 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1767 OF 2025 (A)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. OTTO PETER PEREIRA S/O I F PEREIRA S/O I F PEREIRA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.138, SURVEY NO.116 CHAGALATTI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BAGALUR BENGALURU KARNATAKA-562 149

¶9

&APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SMT. NIDHI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HEBBAL TRAFFIC POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶14

KUMAR S/O DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT KRISHNAIAHA DODDI VILAGE

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:14334 CRL.A No. 1767 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

UYYAMBALA HOBLI KANANPURA TALUK KARNATAKA-562 126

¶19

&RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED)

¶21

THIS CRL.A FILED U/S 378(4) CR.P.C (U/S 419(4) BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE CRL.A BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DTD 13.02.2025 PASSED IN CC.NO.1798/2024 BY THE LEARNED HONBLE COURT OF JMFC (TRAFFIC COURT-V) BENGALURU (MMTC-V) THEREBY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT NO.2, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 304(A),279 OF IPC, 1806, U/S 134(a)(b),187 OF I.M.V ACT, 1988.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is by the de-facto complainant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13.02.2025 passed in C.C.No.1798/2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Traffic Court-V), Bengaluru, by which, the Magistrate had acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and under

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:14334 CRL.A No. 1767 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'IMV Act').

¶30

Case of the prosecution is that on 20.01.2024 at about 1.00 p.m. on B.B.Road, near Kempapura Bus Stop, a Lorry bearing registration No.KA-09-C-0935 being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner, endangering the human life, dashed to the Scooter bearing registration No.KA-04-EU-5672 being ridden by one Shoba Olagavia Pereira, due to which, she fell down, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Based on this information, police registered a case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of the IPC and under Section 134(a) and (b) r/w 187 of IMV Act and chargesheet was filed. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, matter was taken for trial.

¶31

Prosecution examined 4 witnesses as PWs.1 to PW.4 and exhibited 13 documents as Exs.P1 to Exs,P13. Prosecution has given up CW.3, CW.5 to CW.13.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:14334 CRL.A No. 1767 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Statement of the accused was recorded under

¶36

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein the accused has denied the incriminating charges made against him. The trial Court framed the following points for its consideration:

¶37

::POINTS::

¶38

1 Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 20.01.2024 at about 1.00 p.m., at B.B.Road, near Kempapura Bust Stop, the accused drove the Lorry bearing its registration No.KA.09.C.0935 in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and dashed to the Scooter bearing its registration No.KA.04.EU.5672 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.279 of IPC?

¶39

2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above date, time and place, the rider of the Scooter by name Shoba Olagavia Perera, aged about 55 years fell succumbed to the injuries and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.304-A of IPC?

¶40

3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above date, time and place, after the accident the accused ran away without attending the injured and without informing to the nearest Police Station and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.187 of M.V. Act?

¶41

4. What Order?

¶42

On appreciation of evidence, trial Court has

¶43

answered the points in the negative, consequently, passed

¶44

the impugned order acquitting the accused of the aforesaid offences.

¶45

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

¶46

perused the records.

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14334 CRL.A No. 1767 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

De-facto complainant, who is appellant herein

¶50

has been examined as PW.1. One Sreemanti Fernandes has been examined as PW.2 as eyewitness to the incident. PW.3 is the mahazar witness. PW.4 is the Investigating Officer. Admittedly, PW.1 de-facto complainant was not the eye witness to the incident. PW2 who is the only witness cited as eye witness. PW.2 has not supported the case of the prosecution. Though she was treated to be hostile, nothing has been elicited in her evidence. Since PW.2 is the only witness produced before the prosecution, for proof of fact of involvement of the accused in incident, and the said witness not having supported case of prosecution and in the absence of any other material evidence brought on record to prove and establish the presence of the accused or his involvement in causing the accident, the trial Court had acquitted the accused.

¶51

Counsel for the appellant refers to Ex.P.9 which is an indemnity bond purported to have been executed by

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:14334 CRL.A No. 1767 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

the owner of the lorry wherein he has stated that the said lorry was being driven by Kumar, vehemently submitted that the said document is sufficient enough to hold the involvement of the accused in the incident. Said submission cannot be accepted. The author of the said document, namely the purported owner of the vehicle is also not examined.

¶56

In the absence of any material evidence on

¶57

record with regard to accused being involved in the incident in any manner, no error or illegality can be found in the judgment and order passed by the trial Court.

¶58

Appeal fails. Same is dismissed .

¶59

SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶60

PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Mr. Otto Peter Pereira v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Otto Peter Pereira v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumara Vs State of Karnataka

N K Radhamohan Vs State of Karnataka

Basamma Vs the Chief Secretary Government of Karnataka

Smt Seethamma @ Nanjamma (Dead)Her Lrs Vs Smt Gowramma W/O Ramaiah

Sri H M Ramaiah Vs the Executive Director

B Venkataraju S/O. Late G Byrappa Vs Smt Tarabai W/O. Changanlal