Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 13724
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
RAJESH RAI K, J
SHRI ISHWAR S/O. LAXMAN KANCHAGAR – Appellant
Versus
SHRI NARAYAN K. JOSHI – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100113 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT
For the Respondents: SRI. C.R. CHIKKAMATH
The trial court's judgment of acquittal was upheld due to the lack of credible evidence and significant delays in filing complaints.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 338 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 134 r/w Section 187 - Acquittal by trial court questioned - Evidence presented by complainant, including testimony of witnesses, was deemed insufficient to prove rashness and negligence - The trial court's judgment based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence was upheld. (Paras 2, 6, 10)
(B) Appeal - Grounds for dismissal - A trial court's acquittal should not be disturbed unless there exists glaring perversity or illegality - In this case, evidence was insufficient and observers were insufficiently credible. (Paras 6, 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The complainant sustained injuries when the respondent's motorcycle allegedly collided with his own due to negligence on 30.01.2006. He filed a complaint after considerable delay due to initial police inaction.
Findings of Court:
The trial court rightfully concluded that the evidence did not establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the acquittal was justified based on presented evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without credible evidence and due to the complainant's failure to explain delays in lodging his complaints, the trial court's decision was justified.
Result: The appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and procedural history. (Para 3) |
| 2. appellant's arguments on trial court’s errors. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondent's defense and counters. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court’s analysis of evidence and decision. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
This appeal directed against the judgment of acquittal passed in CC No.879/2010 dated 28.12.2016 by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Bailhongal, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’], whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Section s 279 and 338 of IPC and Section 134 r/w Section
187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , [Hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’]
2. The factual matrix of the case is that, on
30.01.2006 at about 10:00 a.m., the appellant/complainant was returning from his house on motorcycle bearing reg.No.KA- 31/K-4058. While he passing near one fertilizer shop, Bailhongal, the respondent/accused came from opposite direction on his motorcycle bearing reg.No.KA-30/H-3037 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the complainant. Due to which, the complainant fell down and sustained injury on his toes. Thereafter, he took treatment at Bailhongal Hospital and subsequently, on 02.02.2006, he lodged a complaint before Bailhongal Police, however, the said complaint was not registered by the said Police. As such, he filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Magistrate in PCR No.21/2006 on 28.02.2006 and the same was referred to the jurisdictional Police by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) for investigation. Thereafter, the jurisdictional Police investigated the case and laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC and Section 134 r/w Section 187 of the M.V. Act.
3. To prove the case before the trial Court, the complainant examined eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and marked 4 documents as Ex.P1 to P4. However, the accused neither examined any witnesses nor produced any documents on his behalf.
4. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him. The said judgment of acquittal is under challenge in this appeal by the complainant.
5. I have heard the learned counsel Sri. Santosh B Rawoot for the appellant/complainant, so also, learned counsel Sri. C.R. Chikkamath, for the respondent/accused.
6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant is that the trial Court has grossly erred while acquitting the respondent/accused for the charges leveled against him, despite the complainant placed sufficient evidence and documents on record. As such, the impugned judgment suffers from perversity and illegality. He contended that complainant/PW1 has categorically deposed in his evidence that on the date of accident, the accused rode his motorcycle in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the complainant (PW1) and thereby caused injuries to him. Subsequently, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Bailhongal Police on 02.02.2006, however, the said police refused to register the FIR, hence, left with no other option; he approached the jurisdictional Magistrate by filing a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. He further contended that PW6 and PW7, eye-witnesses to the incident, though turned hostile to the prosecution case, PW7 stated about the accident to the motorcycle of the complainant in the spot of incident. In such circumstance, the accident in question is proved and Wound Certificate placed by the complainant at Ex.P4 clearly corroborates the testimony of PW1. Accordingly, the complainant has proved the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Despite, the trial Court acquitted the accused in the impugned judgment. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal and to convict the respondent/accused for the charg
