The Supreme Court was referred regarding the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, where the High Court confirmed the trial court's order of acquittal dismissed the State's appeal alleging miscarriage of justice in a suicide case.
The appeal is dismissed and the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:45293 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1282 OF 2015 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TEREKANAMBI POLICE STATION GUNDLUPET - 571111
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL., (HCGP)
AND:
HANUMAIAH @ RAJU S/O LATE BILIGIRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT KUNDAKERE VILLAGE, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571111.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. D.S. HOSMATH., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by SANDHYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C BY THE S.P.P. AND ADV. FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a)GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17.07.2015 PASSED IN S.C.NO.71/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., CHAMARAJANAGAR, THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498-A AND 306 OF IPC; b)SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17.07.2015 IN S.C.NO.71/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., CHAMARAJANAGAR; c)CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE AFORESAID OFFENCES WITH WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN CHARGED AND TRIED.
NC: 2023:KHC:45293 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2015
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The State has preferred this appeal against
judgment of acquittal passed by the Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar in S.C. No.71/2012 dated 17.07.2015.
the prosecution that, the accused was subjecting Mangalamma to cruelty, both physical and mental torture, harassing the deceased saying that she would not live. It is stated that, on 25.05.2012 the accused while going to coolie work, picked up quarrel and abused
NC: 2023:KHC:45293 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2015
her, at that time, he poured kerosene on her body and set fire.
Panchas and marked it as Ex.P5. On the basis of statement, accused was arrested in Crime no.56/12 of Therekanambi Police station, Gundlupet. After investigation, the IO submitted the charge sheet against the accused under Sections 498(A) and 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).
NC: 2023:KHC:45293 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2015
was filed to release the accused on bail. On considering
the application, the accused was enlarged on bail.
has examined in all 14 witnesses as PWs.1 to 14 and 12 documents were marked i.e. Exs. P1 to P12. Four material objects were marked as MO Nos.1 to 4. On closure of prosecution side evidence, 313 statement was recorded as to the incriminating circumstances found against the accused.
NC: 2023:KHC:45293 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2015
course of examination of Doctor PW.8 Dr.M.Jagadeesh, MLC Extract copy is marked as Ex.D1.
harassing the victim. The evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 discloses that the accused was subjecting the deceased both physically and mentally and it further establishes the act of accused having poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire.
NC: 2023:KHC:45293 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2015
deceased was in a fit condition to give statement regarding her injuries due to pouring of kerosene and setting fire. On overall appreciation of the facts and circumstances clearly leads to a conclusion that deceased committed suicide on account of cruelty so meted out to her by the accused. On all these grounds sought to allow this appeal.
and on perusal of material on record, the following points arise for my consideration:
My answer to the above points are as under:
NC: 2023:KHC:45293 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2015
(1) Negative
(2) As per final order.
“23. While considering the scope of power of the appellate court in an appeal against the order of acquittal, after referring to various judgments, in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007)4 SCC 415, this Court summarised the principle as under:-
“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:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and
1 2018 SCC OnLine SC 676
NC: 2023:KHC:45293 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2015
reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(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.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good 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.
(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.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. ”
20. In the case of MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v.
STATEOF KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS2 , at paragraph 16 of the judgment it is held as under:
“ 16. The High Court in the present case was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. In such a case, it is well settled that the High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because it opines that a different view is possible or even preferable. The High Court, in other words, should not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because two views are possible. The interference of the High Court in such cases is governed by well-established principles. According to these principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence by the trial court is capricious or its conclusions are without evidence that the High Court may reverse an order of acquittal. The High Court may be justified in interfering where it finds that the order of acquittal is not in accordance with law and that the approach of the trial court has led to a miscarriage of justice. … ”
2 2019 SCC OnLine 69
NC: 2023:KHC:45293 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2015
21. In the case of HARI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF
RAJASTHAN3 , at paragraph 4 of the judgment, it is observed thus:
“4. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan on the other hand contended that the power of the High Court while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal is in no way different from the power while hearing an appeal against conviction and the Court, therefore was fully justified in re-appreciating the entire evidence, upon which the order of acquittal was based. The High Court having examined the reasons of the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PWs 6 & 7 and having arrived at the conclusion, that those reasons are in the realm of conjectures and there has been gross miscarriage of justice and the mis-appreciation of the evidence on record is the basis for acquittal, was fully entitled to set aside an order of acquittal and no error can be said to have been committed. It is too well settled that the power of the High Court, while hearing an appeal against an acquittal is as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction and it had full power to re- appreciate the entire evidence, but if two views on the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then the High Court would not be justified
3 2000 SCC OnLine 933
in interfering with the acquittal, merely because it feels that it would sitting as a trial court, have taken the other view. While re- appreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the learned trial Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice.… ”
KISTOORA RAM4 , at paragraph 8 of the judgment it is held as under:
“8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.”
4 2022 SCC OnLine 684
NC: 2023:KHC:45293 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2015
23. In the case of MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH5 , at paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is observed thus:
“12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a competent court after a full-fledged trial, and once the trial court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on the appellate court while dealing with the appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the power of the appellate court to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon which the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a conclusion.”
Mangalamma has committed suicide by pouring kerosene and lit fire herself due to physical and mental harassment by the accused. On perusal of Ex.D1 which was confronted to PW.8 Dr.M.Jagadeesh who admitted the
5 (2016)10 SCC 220
contents of Ex.D1, reveals that, history of accidental burn injury due to burst of kerosene pump stove when she was trying to lit at 7.30 p.m. on 25.5.2012 and there were injuries all over her body.
NC: 2023:KHC:45293 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2015
deposed in his evidence that after recording the history of injuries, after 10 to 15 minutes the Police along with brother of injured Rajendra came to the hospital and brother of injured has stated that the accused has set fire to the injured. Mangalamma. Again when enquired to the injured/deceased, then she has reported the fact that the galata took place between herself and her husband. He has certified that the injured was in a fit condition to give statement. Dr.M.Jagadeesh PW.8 who has examined the injured has not given certificate as to the condition of the injured, whether she was in a fit condition to give statement or not.
NC: 2023:KHC:45293 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2015
will create reasonable doubt as to the act of the accused. During the course of the cross-examination, PW.12 IO has clearly admitted that he has not examined the accused on the date of accident. Further he has stated that accused was admitted to the hospital for taking treatment for accidental burn injuries. PW.8 in his evidence has stated that, on 25.5.2012 at 10.15 p.m. when he was on duty, accused brought his wife Mangalamma with history of burn injuries, due to burst of kerosene pump stove and suffered accidental injuries. Ex.P8 is the wound certificate issued by Dr.Jagadeesh who has also deposed that accused sustained burn injuries on both hands on enquiry, it revealed that he attempted to rescue his wife from fire and in that process he sustained the burn injuries on his hands. He has treated him and found the burnt injuries to his both hands with blebs seen over dorsal aspect of the both hands more on left hand as per Ex.P6 which is wound
NC: 2023:KHC:45293 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2015
certificate. It also reveals that the accused came himself with accidental injuries over both hands and dorsal aspect when he was trying to protect his wife in his house.
“I hereby certify that this person Hanumaiah S/o Beligiraiah, aged 40 years was brought to the Hospital by HC-35 PC- 380 at 6.30 p.m. on 26.05.2012.
On examination he is found to be physically and mentally fit. There is burn wound over both the hands.”
NC: 2023:KHC:45293 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2015
had sustained burn injuries due to kerosene pump stove burst. The trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and facts in paragraph 37. The trial Court has observed as under:
"The entire case of the prosecution is based on the dying declaration given by the deceased at Ex.P5. PW 1 and 2 who are parents of the deceased have also stated that the deceased narrated the cause of her dearth when they met her in the hospital. But it has come in the evidence of PW8 Dr. Jagadish that first the deceased gave history alleging that the stove was burst when she was trying to light the same and therefore she was caught in accidental fire. He further states that thereafter police and brother of deceased Rajendra came and Rajendra told that accused had set fire to Mangalamma and thereafter he enquired again to Mangalamma and she told that there was quarrel in between her and her husband and therefore she poured kerosene and set fire to herself. Therefore tutoring of deceased Mangalamma by his brother Rajendra cannot be ruled out. Moreover, there is no endorsement in Ex.P5 that PW8 examined Mangalamma and certified that she was in fit mental condition to give the statement. Therefore
doubt arises with regard to giving of said dying declaration by said Mangalamma voluntarily and she was in fit condition to give the statement. Hence, the said benefit of doubt should to the accused. Therefore, prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, above point No.1 and 2 are held in the Negative.
material on record and also keeping in mind the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, I do not find any illegality
or perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
ii) Judgment of acquittal passed by the Prl.District and Sessions Judge at Chamarajanagar in S.C. NO.71/12 dated 17.07.2015 is hereby confirmed.
NC: 2023:KHC:45293 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2015
iii) Send back the trial Court records with a copy of this judgment.
Sd/JUDGE
Sk/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the State has made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI & OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRAReferred¶19
MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI & OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKAExplained¶19
CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, (2007)4 SCC 415 · Who else cites this
MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v. STATEOF KARNATAKAExplained¶19
MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v. STATEOF KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS
HARI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHANExplained¶19
HARI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KISTOORA RAMExplained¶20
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KISTOORA RAM
MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHExplained¶21
MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, (2016)10 SCC 220 · Who else cites this
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TEREKANAMBI POLICE STATION GUNDLUPET
HANUMAIAH @ RAJU
G BASAVARAJA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
