Dismissed

State of Karnataka v. Kenchaveerappa

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2022CRL.A/1215/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the State's criminal appeal against acquittal. Finding sufficient reason to doubt the prosecution's case due to hostile spot witnesses and a pending counter-case involving the same parties, the court held that the acquittal was a possible view and confirmed the judgment.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. is rejected; the judgment of acquittal is confirmed.

State of Karnataka Vs Kenchaveerappa — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.JOSHI

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1215/2016

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HOLALKERE POLICE STATION CHITRADURGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE. ...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SHRI. ABHIJIT K.S., HCGP)

¶11

AND:

¶12

KENCHAVEERAPPA S/O. KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶13

NIRMALA

¶14

W/O. KENCHAVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶15

SHWETHA D/O. KENCHAVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶16

RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE AGRICULTURISTS

¶17

¶18

R/O.MALASINGANAHALLI VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK – 577501

¶19

GURUSWAMY S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶20

REKHA S/O. GURUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶21

BOTH ARE R/O.DODDAKERI VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK – 577213

¶22

SHIVAPPA

¶23

S/O.KARIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A. MALASINGANAHALLI VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SHRI. B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5 SHRI M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶25

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.04.2016 PASSED BY THE SPL. II ADDL. DISTRICT AND S.J., CHITRADURGA IN SPL.C.(SC/ST) NO.16/2014 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354(B) AND 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(v)(x)(xi) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT THIS DAY, C.M.JOSHI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶28

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

This appeal is filed by the State assailing the judgment of acquittal in SPL.C.(SC/ST) NO.16/2014 dated 07.04.2016 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, which was arising out of Crime No.236/2014 of Holalkere Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354(B), 506 read with section 149 of IPC, 1860 and under section 3(1)(x)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant/State contending that the impugned judgment is not in accordance with law has approached this Court in appeal.

¶31

On issuance of notice, the respondents /

¶32

accused Nos.1 to 5 have appeared before this Court through their counsel Shri B.M.Siddappa. The complainant - PW.8, who is arrayed as respondent No.6, has appeared through his counsel Shri M.B.Chandrachooda. After having secured the Trial Court Records, we have heard the

¶33

¶34

arguments of learned HCGP Shri Abhijith.K.S. for the appellant/State and learned counsel Shri B.M.Siddappa for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel Shri M.B.Chandrachooda for respondent No.6.

¶35

3. The facts leading to the case are as below:-

¶36

The Holalkere Police had registered a case on the basis of the complaint filed by one Shivappa – PW.8 as per Ex.P13, wherein it was alleged that on 01.06.2014, while the complainant along with his family had been to his land in Malasingenahalli village, Holalkere taluk, in order to prepare the land for cultivation and at about 10.00 a.m., the accused, who were seven in number, had come to the

¶37

land by forming an unlawful assembly holding sticks and stones etc., and abused him in filthy words and also taking the name of his caste i.e., ‘kanka’ and abused in filthy language and questioned him as with whose permission he is cultivating the land and the complainant had replied that as usual this year also he is cultivating the land and it is in pursuance of the order passed by the Civil Court. It is

¶38

¶39

alleged that the accused No.1 – Kenchaveerappa hit him with a stick on both of his legs and caused bleeding injury and on seeing it, his wife Girijamma came and held the hands of accused No.1 and she was also assaulted by him and seeing that, the son of the complainant Santhosh also came there and with the same sticks he had been assaulted by accused No.1 and as such, there were injuries to Santhosh also. It was alleged that the son of accused No.1 i.e., Rangaswamy also assaulted another son of the complainant Rudresh with a stone and caused injury to his left hand fingers. The other accused caught hold of the complainant and his family members and they were pushed to the ground and were kicked and assaulted. When one Somashekar, son of Thippanna, came there and rescued the complainant and others from the clutches of the accused, the accused again abusing them in filthy words and threatening that they would be killed went away. Then the complainant and his family members went to the District Hospital at Chitradurga in a vehicle and took treatment. Therefore, it was alleged that the accused,

¶40

¶41

being belonging to Lingayat community, they had assaulted them and as such, they have also committed offences under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶42

The said complaint was registered by the Investigating Officer i.e., PW.11 – Rangaswamy who was the P.S.I. and he initiated the investigation. PW.11 recorded the statement of the witnesses and thereafter handed over further investigation to PW.12 – D.K.Kavalappa, who was the Dy.S.P. PW.12 recorded the statement of the witnesses who were injured and then visited the spot and conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P1 and also prepared a sketch as per Ex.P4. He also caused to take certain photographs of the spot. The stick and the stone were seized from the spot which are as per M.O.1 and M.O.2. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of other witnesses and obtained the wound certificates from the Medical Officers and after completion of the investigation, by obtaining caste certificate and the record

¶43

¶44

of rights of that place where the incident had taken place, he completed the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused for the above mentioned offences. In the meanwhile, accused had obtained the anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court.

¶45

The Special Court took cognizance of the above mentioned offences and secured the presence of the accused who were on bail. The charges for the above said offences were framed and read over to the accused and they claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to establish its case, examined 13 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.13 and Exhibits P1 to P18 and M.O.1 and M.O.2 were marked in evidence. After recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., heard the arguments addressed by learned Special Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and came to the conclusion that the accused are liable to be acquitted and therefore, it proceeded to pass the impugned judgment.

¶46

¶47

6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court,

¶48

the State has come up in this appeal. The State has contended that the judgment and order of acquittal is opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case and the reasons assigned by the trial Court to acquit the accused are not proper. It is contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution in the right perspective and it also failed to draw proper inference from the evidence available on record. It is contended that the trial Court has failed to see that sufficient material was available against the accused and the prosecution witnesses had fully supported the case of the prosecution. It is contended that the trial Court has committed error in holding that all the important prosecution witnesses belong to the same family and they are interested witnesses and it ought not to have brushed aside the entire evidence placed on record by the prosecution. It is contended that without appreciating the evidence of these witnesses in the proper perspective, the trial Court has wrongly proceeded to acquit the accused.

¶49

¶50

It is contended that PWs.3, 8, 9 and 10 had supported the case of the prosecution and the trial Court failed to appreciate their evidence who have in unison stated about the alleged incident. It is contended that PWs.4, 5 and 7 are the injured witnesses and they have given evidence before the trial Court that they were assaulted by the accused and therefore, there was no sufficient reason for the trial Court to say that their story is unbelievable. It is contended that the trial Court while disbelieving the evidence, it ought to have seen their evidence in proper perspective and their evidence was in consonance with the offences charged against them. It is stated that PW.7 was a circumstantial witness and he has supported the case of the prosecution and his evidence corroborates the evidence of other witnesses and therefore, the trial Court has slipped into error in acquitting the accused / respondents. It is contended that the trial Court ought not to have made much of the minor discrepancies which had been highlighted before it and such omissions and commissions are quite natural when the witnesses depose

¶51

¶52

before the Court after considerable efflux of time. It is contended that the evidence before the trial Court is natural and there is no reason as to why the injured witnesses are deposing falsely and in the circumstances of the case, the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is defective and therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable under law.

¶53

Learned counsel appearing for the accused / respondents has taken us through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He has contended that there was a counter case arising out of the same incident, which was registered in Crime No.234/2014 by Holalkere Police Station and in fact both these cases should have been tried by the Special Court and unfortunately, a separate trial has taken place in respect of the said counter case which was registered for the offences punishable under sections 447, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and it has also ended in acquittal in C.C.No.64/2016 by judgment dated 20.09.2019 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge &

¶54

¶55

JMFC at Holalkere. He has contended that both the cases should have been tried by the same Court in order to ascertain who is the aggressive party. He has contended that Section 323 of Cr.P.C. should have been employed by the prosecution in order to come to an effective conclusion and in the absence of both the cases being tried by one and the same Court, when the learned Magistrate has held that it is doubtful that such an incident had taken place, it would not be proper to assail the judgment of the Special Court by the prosecution in this appeal.

¶56

We have heard the arguments of learned HCGP Shri Abhijith.K.S. for the appellant/State and learned counsel Shri B.M.Siddappa for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel Shri M.B.Chandrachooda for respondent No.6.

¶57

PW.1 - Vishwanatha and PW.2 - Thimbalappa

¶58

are the witnesses of spot mahazar which is at Ex.P1 and sketch which has been prepared at Ex.P4. Both these witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution and

¶59

¶60

thereby their evidence that the Investigating Officer had visited the spot and conducted spot mahazar suffers a jolt and the prosecution is left with the sole evidence of the Investigating Officer alone, apart from the testimony of the interested witnesses.

¶61

PW.3 – Rudresh happens to be the son of PW.8 – Shivappa and PW.9 – Girijamma happens to be the wife of PW.8 and PW.10 – Santhosh also happens to be another son of PW.8. PW.4 – Dr.Salimanjappa happens to be the Medical Officer who treated PW.3 and issued wound certificates as per Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. PW.5 – Dr.Dinesh is the Medical Officer who had issued the medical certificates as per Ex.P7 and Ex.P8. PW.6 – Horakerappa happens to be the sole independent witness who is alleged to have visited the spot at the time of the incident and had rescued PW.8 and his family members from the clutches of the accused and sent them to the hospital. Unfortunately, PW.6 – Horakerappa has turned hostile to the prosecution and has resiled from the version contended by the

¶62

¶63

prosecution. PW.7 – Sadashivappa happens to be the person who had lent the tractor to accused No.1 Kenchaveerappa and he only deposes that he had lent the tractor, but he does not know anything about the incident, which had taken place in the land, between the accused and the complainant and his family members. Therefore, the evidence of PW.7 – Sadashivappa is not of much relevance for the prosecution. As noted supra, PW.8 – Shivappa, PW.9 – Girijamma and PW.10 – Santhosh are members of the same family. PW.11 – Rangaswamy and PW.12 – D.K.Kavalappa are the Investigating Officers of this case. PW.13 – Gangadharappa is the Head Constable who was sent by the Investigating Officer to record the statement of the witnesses at the hospital. He went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant as per Ex.P13 and it was brought back to the police station and the same was registered treating it as F.I.R. He had also obtained memo from the hospital as per Ex.P17 and

¶64

Ex.P18.

¶65

¶66

The evidence of PW.8 coupled with the

¶67

evidence of PW.3, PW.9 and PW.10 gains much importance in view of the fact that they are the members of the same family. Admittedly, there are no independent witnesses who are not related to the above witnesses who could say about the alleged incident.

¶68

Learned HCGP appearing for the appellant / State has contended that PW.8 in his evidence has reiterated the complaint averments and has stated that the accused had assaulted him and his wife with stick and stone. It is further asserted by PW.8 that accused Rangaswamy had assaulted his son Rudresh with stone on his chest and twisted his fingers and then one Somashekar came there and rescued him. It is pertinent to note that said Somashekar who had rescued son of PW.8 has not been examined by the prosecution. In the crossexamination, PW.8 has stated that accused Nos.4 and 5 are from Channagiri taluk and the father of accused No.1 had one brother by name Hutchappa who had no issues.

¶69

¶70

It was further elicited in the cross-examination that when the accused had come to the land, PW.8 did not ask them anything and at that time, his wife and two children were also present at the spot.

¶71

Then learned HCGP has taken us through the evidence of PW.9 who has stated that they own the land where incident took place and while she, her husband and children were in the land and preparing the land for cultivation, at around 9.30 a.m. to 10.00 a.m., the accused came there and abused them in filthy words and assaulted her husband with stick and stone. She has stated that accused Nirmala had assaulted her with a stone on her forehead and accused Guruswamy had assaulted her son PW.10 – Santhosh and he was injured.

¶72

Further learned HCGP has also taken us through the evidence of PW.10 – Santhosh who had stated that when they had been to the land for cleaning the land, the accused came there and assaulted his parents. He has stated that the accused Guruswamy assaulted him on his

¶73

¶74

head and caused bleeding injury and the accused also assaulted his father and mother and caused injuries. He also reiterated that one Somashekar had rescued them and they were taken to the hospital at Chitradurga. He has identified M.O.1 and M.O.2.

¶75

Learned HCGP has further taken us through the evidence of PW.3 – Rudresh who states about the incident on similar lines and therefore, he contends that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶76

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents / accused contended that the cross-examination of PW.8 clearly establish that there was a civil case and it was decided in favour of the accused. He has taken us through the evidence of PW.8 and PW.9 wherein the fact that O.S.No.83/1998 filed by the accused was decided in favour of PW.8. The said judgments in O.S.No.83/1998 and R.A.No.45/2004 have been produced at Ex.P14 and Ex.P15. It is contended that the accused had never come

¶77

¶78

to the land which was in dispute and that the accused No.1 being the fostered by one Hutchappa and Eeramma and that the land being owned by Hutchappa and Eeramma as ancestral property, accused No.1 was in possession of the same and therefore, the alleged incident is a created and concocted one. Learned counsel for the respondents / accused has also taken us through the cross-examination of the above witnesses wherein the civil dispute is an admitted fact. He has also taken us through the crossexamination of PW.10 who also admitted that the civil dispute between the accused and the complainant is still pending before this Court in second appeal. Therefore, he contended that the alleged incident is concocted one and counter case being there, it should also have been tried by the same Court and there is no reason as to why the prosecution has not invoked provisions of section 323 of Cr.P.C. in getting the case arising in Crime No.234/2014 being committed to the Special Court which had powers to try the cases arising out of the same incident. On these grounds, learned counsel for the respondents has

¶79

¶80

supported the reasoning adopted by the trial Court. He has also taken us through the impugned judgment wherein the trial Court has observed that RSA.No.1170/2012 regarding the civil dispute is still pending and there is absolutely no evidence by PW.3, either in his examinationin-chief or cross-examination, that there is any allegation of the abuse being made by taking the name of the caste.

¶81

Further he has also taken us through the evidence of PW.7 wherein he has only stated about the lending of the tractor, but he did not support the prosecution case in its entirety. It is further submitted that the trial Court has properly considered the fact that the spot of the incident has not been properly established by the evidence of the spot panchas and these panchas have turned hostile and therefore, seizure of M.O.1 and M.O.2 is not established. He has also taken us through the evidence of the Medical Officers who had only stated about the nature of the injuries suffered by these witnesses and their evidence cannot be sufficient evidence in order to

¶82

¶83

implicate the accused persons. Therefore, on these grounds, when the trial Court had come to the conclusion that the evidence of the sole injured witness, who is an interested party in the matter, was not sufficient enough in order to prove the guilt of the accused and particularly, when absolutely there is no evidence by any independent quarters and also when the prosecution has failed to get the counter case being tried by one and the same court in order to ascertain who is the aggressive party, the benefit which had been extended to the complainant and his family members should also to be extended to the accused herein. Therefore, he has contended that no fault can be found in respect of the conclusion reached by the trial Court and as such, the appeal is devoid of any merit and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court.

¶84

It is settled principle of law that when the trial

¶85

Court has come to the conclusion that the evidence of the injured witnesses, they having sufficient reason to have

¶86

¶87

grudge against the accused in connection with the civil dispute, is not sufficient enough to base the guilt of the accused, it would not be proper for the Appellate Court to interfere with the same. It is also relevant to note that the accused will have a presumption of innocence and it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond such reasonable doubt. When the accused have a verdict of acquittal in their favour by the trial Court, which had the advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses and the manner in which they depose before the Court, the presumption of innocence against the accused gets fortified and as such, the Appellate Court should be too cautious while interfering in the same. This principle has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in several of its decisions and a chronicle of all those decisions has been reiterated and referred to in a recent judgment in the case

¶88

of Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT, Delhi) and Another¹ . Referring to the decision in the case of

¶89

1 (2022) 8 SCC 536

¶90

¶91

Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala² it was held, at para 8,

¶92

as below:

¶93

"8. Before venturing into the merits of the case, we would like to reiterate the scope of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) while deciding an appeal by the High Court, as the position of law is rather settled. We would like to quote the relevant portion of a recent judgment of this Court in Jafarudheen and Others v. State of Kerala (2022 SCC Online SC 495) as follows:

¶94

"25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in

¶95

2 (2022) 8 SCC 440

¶96

¶97

favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters".

¶98

Further the Hon’ble Apex Court has also reiterated its earlier observations in the case of Mohan @ Srinivas @

¶99

Seena @ Tailor Seena v. State of Karnataka reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1233 and at paras 20, 21, 22 of the said decision, it was held as below:

¶100

“20. Section 378 CrPC enables the State to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal. Section 384 CrPC speaks of the powers that can be exercised by the Appellate Court. When the trial court renders its decision by acquitting the accused, presumption of innocence gathers strength before the Appellate Court. As a consequence, the onus on the prosecution becomes more burdensome as there is a double presumption of innocence. Certainly, the Court of first instance has its own advantages in delivering its verdict, which is to see the witnesses in person while they depose. The Appellate Court is expected to involve itself in a deeper, studied scrutiny of not only the evidence before it, but is duty bound to satisfy

¶101

¶102

itself whether the decision of the trial court is both possible and plausible view. When two views are possible, the one taken by the trial court in a case of acquittal is to be followed on the touchstone of liberty along with the advantage of having seen the witnesses. Article 21 of the Constitution of India also aids the accused after acquittal in a certain way, though not absolute. Suffice it is to state that the Appellate Court shall remind itself of the role required to play, while dealing with a case of an acquittal.

¶103

21. Every case has its own journey towards the truth and it is the Court's role undertake. Truth has to be found on the basis of evidence available before it. There is no room for subjectivity, nor the nature of offence affects its performance. We have a hierarchy of courts in dealing with cases. An Appellate Court shall not expect the trial court to act in a particular way depending upon the sensitivity of the case. Rather it should be appreciated if a trial court decides a case on its own merit despite its sensitivity.

¶104

22. At times, courts do have their constraints. We find, different decisions being made by different courts, namely, trial court on the one

¶105

¶106

hand and the Appellate Courts on the other. If such decisions are made due to institutional constraints, they do not augur well. The district judiciary is expected to be the foundational court, and therefore, should have the freedom of mind to decide a case on its own merit or else it might become a stereotyped one rendering conviction on a moral platform. Indictment and condemnation over a decision rendered, on considering all the materials placed before it, should be avoided. The Appellate Court is expected to maintain a degree of caution before making any remark.

¶107

Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also observed by referring to the decision in the case of N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamilnadu reported in (2021) 3 SCC 687 , wherein, it was observed, at para 20, as below:

¶108

“20. Mainly it is contended by Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the view taken by the trial court is a “possible view”, having regard to the evidence on record. It is submitted that the trial court has recorded cogent and valid reasons in support of its findings for acquittal. Under Section 378 CrPC, no differentiation is made between an appeal against

¶109

¶110

acquittal and the appeal against conviction. By considering the long line of earlier cases this Court in the judgment in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, [(2007) 4 SCC 415] has laid down the general principles regarding the powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Para 42 of the judgment which is relevant reads as under: (SCC p. 432)

¶111

“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

¶112

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

¶113

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

¶114

(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good

¶115

¶116

and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

¶117

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

¶118

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb

¶119

¶120

the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

¶121

Therefore, this double presumption which is available in favour of the accused cannot be interfered with merely because another view is possible. The Appellate Court cannot interfere in a particular view adopted by the trial Court in respect of the testimony of the witnesses, which is based on the demeanor of the witnesses simply because another view as contended by the State is also possible.

¶122

Further, the decision in the case of State of

¶123

Karnataka, By Circle Inspector of Police v. Hosakeri Ningappa & Another³ , based on the manner in which a case and a counter case has to be dealt with. In this decision, this Court had an occasion to consider the manner in which a case and a counter case has to be tried. This Court relying on the decision in the case of Nathilal v. State of Uttar Pradesh⁴ , and various other decisions,

¶124

3 ILR 2012 Kar 509

¶125

1990 Suppl. SCC 145

¶126

¶127

has culled out the manner in which a case and a counter case has to be tried. In para 18, it was observed as below:

¶128

“18. In view of the foregoing reasons, we answer the points referred to us as under:

¶129

(a) If the case and counter case are not tried simultaneously as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Nathilal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Supra)

¶130

and in the case of Sudhir and others v. State of M.P. (supra) the proceedings ipso facto do not get vitiated. But, where the irregular procedure adopted by the Trial court has caused prejudice to the accused and has occasioned failure of justice, the proceedings and the trial vitiates. Otherwise, the proceedings are protected under Section 465 of the Code.

¶131

(b) The evidence recorded in one case cannot be looked into in the other case. The Trial Judge can only rely upon the evidence recorded in that particular case and the evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Each case must be

¶132

¶133

decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case. However, if the evidence recorded in one case is brought on record in accordance with procedure known to law in the other case, then, such evidence which is legally brought on record can be looked into. Otherwise, the evidence recorded in one case cannot be looked into in the other case.

¶134

(c) If the Trial Court disposes of the case and counter case on different dates acquitting the accused therein and no appeal is preferred in one of the cases and the appeal is preferred in the case decided later, the proceedings in the later case do not automatically get vitiated. Each case has to be judged on its own merits. Unless prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused, the proceedings in the later case do not get vitiated.”

¶135

It is relevant to note that in matters involving

¶136

a case and a counter case, it is always desirable that both the cases are tried by one and the same court in order to

¶137

¶138

ascertain who is the aggressor in a scuffle involving two groups. The manner in which the trial has to be held has been dealt in detail in the case reported in the case of K.M.Ganesh v. State of Karnataka⁵ . In this decision, the meaning of simultaneous trial has been elaborately discussed by the Single Bench of this Court.

¶139

Thus, the importance of trial being conducted by one and the same court in respect of a case and a counter case has been no more res integra and there is no reason as to why the State failed to notice this aspect while holding the trial. On this count also, when the learned Magistrate has come to a conclusion that the accused and the injured witnesses being relatives and they were inimical terms with each other, the possibility of an implication of both of them and blowing out a minor scuffle between them into disproportionate levels cannot be ruled out. Under these circumstances, when the State has failed to adhere to the norms which are prescribed for dealing

¶140

5 ILR 2003 Karnataka 2489

¶141

¶142

with a case and a counter case and one of the case has ended in acquittal, it is imperative that the present case also do not call for any interference unless the prosecution have also challenged the counter case which had ended in acquittal. Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Special Court in Special Case No.16/2014.

¶143

22. For the aforesaid reasons and findings, we

¶144

are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused. The appeal deserves to be rejected as being devoid of merits. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

¶145

ORDER

¶146

(i) The appeal filed by the appellant / State under section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C., is hereby rejected.

¶147

(ii) Consequently, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in SPL.C.(SC/ST)

¶148

¶149

NO.16/2014 dated 07.04.2016 is hereby confirmed.

¶150

Sd/JUDGE

¶151