BASAPPA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 391 · Decided: 27-02-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 3 S.C.R. 391 
BASAPPA 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 2014) 
FEBRUARY 27, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND KURIAN 
JOSEPH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
PENAL CODE, 1860: ss.279, 304A - Rash and 
negligent driving resulting in death of 2 year old child -
C 
Magistrate acquitted the appellant holding that there was no 
impeachable and clinching evidence to show the appellant 
was the driver at the relevant point of time and that the 
accident happened due to the rash and negligent act on his 
part - On State's appeal uls.378, Cr.P.C., High Court re-
D 
appreciated the whole evidence and held that the appellant 
was liable to be convicted u/ss.279 and 304A - On appeal, 
held: There was no direct evidence with regard to the 
ingredients of ss. 279 and 304A - High Court, on the only 
evidence that the appellant was scolded by people in the 
E 
hospital came to conclusion that the appellant was the driver 
of the tractor -High CQL/rt, on re-appreciation of the evidence 
took another view so as to convict the appellant - There was 
no finding in the impugned Judgment by the High Court that 
the conclusions drawn by trial court were perverse so as to 
F 
mean that the same was against the weight of evidence - Thus, 
in such circumstances, the High Court was not justified in 
reversing the acquittal. 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s.378 -
Acquittal by trial court - Scope of interference by High Court G 
- Held: High Court in an appeal u/s.378 is entitled to 
: reappraise the evidence and conclusions drawn by trial court, 
but the same is permissible only if the judgment of trial court 
is perverse - The exercise of power uls.378 by the court is to 
391 
H 
392 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 3 S.C.R. 
A prevent failure of justice or miscarriage of justice - In the 
instant case, High Court did not take view that the judgment 
of trial court acquitting the accused was based on no material 
or it was perverse or fhe view by trial court was wholly 
unreasonable or it was not a plausible view or there was non-
B consideration of any evidence or there was palpable 
misreading of evidence, etc. - On the contrary, High Court held 
that on the available evidence, another view was also 
reasonably possible in the sense that the appellant-accused 
could have been convicted - In such circumstances, the High 
c Court was not justified in reversing the acquittal. 
The prosecution case was that an accident occurred 
while the appellant was driving a tractor resulting in death 
of 2 year old child. The appellant was charge sheeted 
under Sections 279 and 304A, IPC and Sections 187 and 
D 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Magistrate 
acquitted the appellant holding that there was no any 
cogent, impeachable and clinching evidence to show the 
appellant was the driver at the relevant point of time and 
the accident happened due to the rash and negligent act 
E on his part. On State's appeal under Section 378, Cr.P.C., 
the High Court re-appreciated the whole evidence and 
held that the appellant was liable to be convicted under 
Sections 279 and 304A, IPC. The High Court further held 
that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences 
F under Section 187 and 197 of the MV Act. The instant 
appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the instant case, the main defence of the 
G appellant before the trial court was that there was no 
evidence to hold that he was the driver of the tractor at 
the relevant time. Even the injured witness PW-5, who was 
driving the scooty, did not identify the driver. The High 
Court, on the only evidence that the appellant was 
H scolded by people in the hospital came to the conclusion 
1: 
BASAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
393 
that the appellant was the driver of the tractor. There was A 
also no direct evidence with regard to the ingredients of 
Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. The High Court, on re-
appreciation of the evidence took another view so as to 
convict the accused. There was no finding in the 
impugned judgment by the High Court that the B 
conclusions drawn by the trial court were perverse so as 
to mean that the same was against the weight of 
evidence. [paras 6, 7] [398-F-H; 399-A] 
2.1, The High Court in an appeal under Section 378 
of Cr.PC is entitled to re-appraise the evidence and C 
conclusions drawn by the trial court, but the same is 
permissible only if the judgment of the trial court is 
perverse. It was

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.