Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Anilkumar C

Karnataka HC21 Apr 2026CRL.A/2339/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed this criminal appeal filed by the State against an acquittal. The trial Court acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) IPC due to doubtful circumstances and lack of corroboration in eyewitness testimony regarding rash and negligent driving.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No.2339 of 2024 dismissed; Impugned order of acquittal by Trial Court upheld.

The State of Karnataka Vs Anilkumar C — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:21422 CRL.A No. 2339 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2339 OF 2024 (A)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TARIKERE POLICE STATION CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI B. LAKSHMAN, H.C.G.P.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

ANILKUMAR C. S/O. LATE NAGAPPAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS CABLE SERVICE WORK R/O. VIJAYAPURA OKKALIGARA KALYANA MANTAPA ROAD CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S. 378(1) AND (3) CR.PC BY THE S.P.P. AND CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT FOR STATE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 01.08.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC, TARIKERE IN C.C.NO.134 OF 2020 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT - ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 279, 337, 338 AND 304(A) OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.A. AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 279, 337, 338 AND 304(A) OF IPC.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:21422 CRL.A No. 2339 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is by the State being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 01.08.2024, passed in C.C.No.134/2020 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Prl. JMFC., Tarikere (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), in terms of which, the trial Court had acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC.

¶25

The case of the prosecution is that on 16.05.2019 around 03.00 p.m., PW.11-Parashuram along with one Chandrashekar as pillion rider was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-18-ED-0500 towards Lakkavalli from Tarikere. At that time accused drove his car bearing registration No.KA-41-M-472 in a high speed, rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against the bike of PW.11-Parashuram near the house of Dornala Girisha situated at Rampura Village. Due to the impact

¶26

the rider and the pillion rider sustained simple and grievous injuries. The pillion rider in particular sustained injuries on his

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21422 CRL.A No. 2339 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

right thigh and knee and they were shifted to Tarikere General Hospital and subsequently to Ashok Sanjeevini Hospital, Shivamogga, wherein the said Chandrashekhar succumbed to death on 16.05.2019, without responding to the treatment. This resulted in registration of a case in Crime No.120/2019, for the aforesaid offences.

¶30

To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined 12 witnesses as PW1 to PW12 and exhibited 16 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P16.

¶31

The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him by the prosecution.

¶32

The trial court thereafter framed the following points for its consideration:

¶33

POINTS

¶34

'' 1. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 16.05.2019 near by the house of Dornal Girisha situated at Ramapura village and within the jurisdiction of this court, the accused being the driver of the Car bearing No.41/M-472 has driven the same in rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger to the human life and the offense thereby committed punishable U/Sec.279 of IPC?

¶35

2. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said place, date and time, the accused dashed his Motorcycle against the bike of CW.12. due to which the CW.12

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:21422 CRL.A No. 2339 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

sustained simple injuries and thereby the accused herein committed the offense punishable U/Sec.337 of IPC?

¶40

3. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said place, date and time, the accused caused grievous injuries to both CW.12 and deceased Chandrashekhar and thereby committed the offense punishable U/Sec.338 of IPC?

¶41

4. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said place, date and time, the accused caused death of Chandrashekhar and offense thereby committed the punishable U/Sec.304(A) of IPC?

¶42

5. What order? ''

¶43

Upon appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court

¶44

answered point Nos.1 to 4 in the negative and consequently passed the impugned judgment and order. Aggrieved by the same, State is before this Court.

¶45

Learned HCGP, assailing the order submits that the prosecution examined one eyewitness Krishnamurthy-PW3 who has deposed and supported the case of prosecution. That the IMV report produced at Ex.P7 do not indicate vehicle having any technical defects. That these circumstances ought to have been held against the accused of he driving the car in a rash and negligent manner. That the trial Court has ignored this piece of evidence available on record. That PW1 and PW2, who are the mahazar witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Hence seeks for allowing of the appeal.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:21422 CRL.A No. 2339 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Heard and perused the records.

¶50

PW1 and PW2 are the mahazar witnesses, who have identified their signature at Ex.P1-Seizure Mahazar. The said witnesses have apparently stated that they have affixed their signatures to the same in the police station, where one car and a bike was seized in their presence. They have also admitted that they affixed the signatures to the Ex.P1-Mahazar at the instruction of the police and no vehicles were seized in their presence. That they have also admitted that they do not know who had signed the said mahazar along with them.

¶51

PW3 who had been cited as an eyewitness, has pleaded ignorance about the deceased Chandrasekhar. However, though he has stated that the car was moving in high speed, rash and negligent manner and further dashed against the motorcycle, the said eyewitness has pleaded ignorance as to who was driving the car. The said eyewitness has admitted that he went to the spot after 5 to 6 minutes of the alleged accident. He has also admitted that the offending car was moving on the left side of the road.

¶52

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:21422 CRL.A No. 2339 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

PW4 is an informant and relative of the deceased Chandrasekhar. In the cross-examination, the said witness has pleaded ignorance about the registration number of the bike on which the deceased was travelling. PW.5-Eshwar RTO officer who had inspected the vehicle and gave the report as per Ex.P7, in the cross examination has admitted damage to the car was on its right hand side.

¶55

PW6-Sanjay is the owner of the two wheeler, who has spoken about he having got the vehicle released. PW7Laxmisha is a police official who had registered the case and handed over the file to the police inspector for further investigation.

¶56

PW8-J.L. Gouli is the Police inspector of Tarikere Police Station, who has spoken about he receiving a call from CW19 and verifying it and that he arrested the accused as he appeared before him and further released him. He released the vehicles by obtaining indemnity bonds. He also recorded the statements of CW.2. He has also spoken about he obtaining the IMV report.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:21422 CRL.A No. 2339 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

PW9 is another investigation officer, who has spoken

¶61

about carrying out the further investigation.

¶62

PW10 is cited as another eyewitness. He has deposed that deceased Chandrashekar is his uncle and died in the road traffic accident 4 years ago. The said witness has pleaded ignorance as to who caused the accident and on whose fault it had taken place. He had not witnessed the accident. The said witness has been treated hostile by the trial Court.

¶63

PW.11 is the brother of the deceased and eyewitness,

¶64

who was riding the bike involved in the matter. He has deposed that deceased Chandrasekhar was the brother and he died in a road accident.

¶65

PW.12 is the then PSI and the official who conducted part of the investigation. He has spoken about he having received the file from CW.18 on 16.05.2019 and deputing one Naimulla, ASI to conduct the inquest. On 15.07.2019, he has conducted spot panchanama in the presence of CW.2 and CW.3 in the place shown by PW.4 and seized the vehicles by drawing Mahazar and handed over the case file to CW.20.

¶66

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:21422 CRL.A No. 2339 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses has found that the prosecution was required to prove not only the accident but also the aspect of rash and negligence on the part of the accused.

¶69

The trial Court has found that PW3 had not witnessed the accident and evidence of PW4 was not in corroboration with the evidence of PW10 who had turned hostile. PW11, even though had supported the case of prosecution, had never deposed that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused that had caused the accident.

¶70

The trial Court accordingly has come to the conclusion that though there was incriminating circumstance against the accused, it was not a fit case, as there was doubtful circumstances resulted in acquittal of the accused.

¶71

In the instant case, since the eyewitnesses have not supported the case of prosecution, the matter as that of negligence in driving the vehicle cannot be established by reading into circumstances.

¶72

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:21422 CRL.A No. 2339 of 2024

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

As rightly taken note of by the trial Court, even if PW11, who was riding the bike and sustained the injury has been examined as eyewitness, he has not spoken about the car being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The trial Court has found that the said evidence of the witness was not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of rash and negligent driving.

¶76

This Court, therefore do not find it appropriate to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the trial Court solely on the basis of evidence given by PW.11, while the other witnesses have not supporting the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, appeal fails and the same is dismissed .

¶77

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

¶78

¶79

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

The State of Karnataka v. Anilkumar C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Anilkumar C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Sathyavelu @ Shaktivelu Vs the State of Karnataka by SHO

Ramdas Vs the State by

B Venkataravanappa Vs State of Karnataka

Vignesh B N Alias Vicky Vs the State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Lokayukta Police Vs Mr H v Krishnaswamy

Manoj Kumar @ Pyachu Vs State of Karnataka