IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2177 OF 2017 (A)

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BIRUR POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

…APPELLANT (BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)

AND:

GANESH UPENDRA NAIK S/O UPENDRA H. NAIK, DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA.31/F-1327, R/O URUKERI VILLAGE, KUMTA TALUK, UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT-581343.

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N …RESPONDENT Location: Hi gh Court of Karnataka (BY SRI P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) &

(3) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 25.09.2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KADUR IN C.C.NO.116/2015 THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279, 338 AND

304(A) OF IPC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur in CC No. 116/2015 dated 25.09.2017.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the CPI, Birur Circle has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC.

4. It is alleged by the prosecution that, on

18.02.2015 at about 02.45 a.m. on Birur-Kadur road of 206 N.H. near Pearls Club, within the jurisdiction of the Birur Police Station, the accused being the driver of KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-31/F-1327 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and when proceeding so, dashed to the oncoming motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-18/J-4674, on which one Gangadharappa and CW2 were proceeding, as a result of which said Gangadharappa sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. Thus, the accused has committed the alleged offences.

5. After filing the charge-sheet, case was registered in CC No.116/2015. In pursuance of summons, the accused appeared before the trial Court and substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 7 witnesses as PW1 to PW7 and 13 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P13. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.

7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial court has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.

8. Smt.Anitha.N.Girish, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit the argument that the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below is illegal, invalid and contrary to law, evidence and material on record. The trial judge has failed to properly appreciate the evidence and material on record. The PW1 has clearly stated as to the act of the accused. The trial court has failed to see that the accused has not offered any explanation with regard to the manner in which the accident had occurred. The case of the prosecution is established by the evidence of PW1 and mahazar witnesses. Same is not considered by the trial Court. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow this appeal.

9. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that, PW1 is the eye-witness who has deposed in his evidence that the driver of the bus drove the same in a high speed. Except this evidence, he has not deposed as to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. The trial court has