A criminal appeal against an order of acquittal was dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. The court held that the trial court properly appreciated evidence and no cogent or corroborative evidence proved the accused's guilt. Appeal dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; judgment of acquittal 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 972 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
SMT. RUKMINI, W/O B.M. KUMAR, AGED MAJOR, R/AT BILLUR VILLAGE, BANAKAL HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 132.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAVEED S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SANDHYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka
RESPONDENT NO.2 to 6 R/AT PATTADUR VILLAGE, BELLUR POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 132.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S. 378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED:11.7.14 IN SPL.C.NO.42/13 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.DIST. AND SJ., CHIKMAGALUR. TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 7 HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 427, 448, 504, 354, 323, 324, 506, 149 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1)(X) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The complainant- Smt. Rukmini has preferred this appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of acquittal passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikmagaluru in Spl.C.No.42/2013 dated 11.07.2014.
the same rank as referred by the trial Court.
On 16.05.2013 at about 8.30 a.m. at Billur Village,
Mudigere Taluk, when PW-1 - Smt. Rukmini was in her house along with her children, the accused with the common object being the member of unlawful assembly holding the deadly weapon criminally trespassed the house of PW-1. Accused Nos.1 to 3 dragged the hair of PW-1 and outraged her modesty and also assaulted to PW-1 -Smt. Rukmini on her chest, face and kicked her and voluntarily caused simple hurt to PW-1. The accused having common object abused PW-1 in filthy language and also referring her caste caused criminal intimidation by giving threat to PW-1. It is also alleged that the
accused having common object, broken the glass and tiles with bricks and stones and caused damages to the house of PW-1. Thus, the accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 448, 504, 354, 323, 324, 506(2) read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the 'IPC' for short) and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
defence against their behalf. On hearing the arguments, the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the alleged commission of offences. Being aggrieved by this the impugned judgment of acquittal, State has not preferred any appeal, but the victim - PW-1 has preferred this appeal.
perusal of the records, the following points would arise for consideration:
Point No.1 : Negative; Point No.2 : As per final order.
Regarding Point No.1:
10. In the case of MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI & OTHERS
v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE
SC 676 , at paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is held thus:
“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, reappreciate and 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. ”
11. In the case of MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS reported
in 2019 SCC ONLINE 69 , 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. … ”
12. In the case of HARI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF
RAJASTHAN reported in 2000 SCC ONLINE 933 , 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 misappreciation 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 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.… ”
13. In the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN v.
KISTOORA RAM reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE 684 , 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.”
14. In the case of MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2016) 10 SCC 220 , 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, reappreciate 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.”
before this Court. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-10, 11 documents were marked as EX-P1 to P11. It is the case of the prosecution that all the accused having common object, trespassed into the house of PW-1 and also broke the glasses and windows and caused damages to the house of PW-1. In this regard, the prosecution has produced the documents Ex-P4 - Assessment
NC: 2023:KHC:45790 CRL.A No. 972 of 2014
Extract pertaining to the house No.725 Assessment No.585, which belongs to Smt. Kaveri W/o. Bangara. The said Kaveri W/o. Bangara was examined as PW-6. This witness has partly supported to the cases of the prosecution and partly hostile. She has not deposed in her evidence that the PW-1 was residing in her house. The prosecution has not explained as to on what capacity the PW-1 was residing in the house bearing No.725, Assessment No.585. Even in the Ex-P2 - Spot Mahazar, the Investigating Officer has not disclosed as to the door number and also assessment number. Investigation Officer has not explained anything in this regard. In the absence of material piece of evidence, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that PW-1 is the owner of the house in question. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 448 and 427 read with Section 149 of the IPC. With regard to the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354 and 324 read with Section 149 are concerned, it the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 3 dragged PW-1 and outraged her modesty and accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted PW-1 - Smt. Rukmini on her chest, face and kicked her and accused No.3
NC: 2023:KHC:45790 CRL.A No. 972 of 2014
caused hurt to the hand of PW-1 by means of knife and also abused PW-1 in filthy language by referring her caste and also giving life threat, thereby causing criminal intimidation to PW-
that Nandakumar has stabbed her with knife, but she has stated that Nandakumar, Pramod, Sandesh, Raghu and Sampath assaulted her with hands. PW-2 and PW-3 are not eye witnesses, but they are hearsay witnesses. Except the sole interested testimonial of PW-1, none of the prosecution witnesses have imposed as to the alleged commission of offences committed by these accused. In the cross examination of PW-1, she has clearly admitted that there is a dispute between the accused and PW-1 family regarding stone quarry and Sri. Gopala has also filed a complaint against her husband before the Mudigere Court. The trial Court has also observed the same. In view of the previous enmity between the family of PW-1 and the accused, the PW-1 might have exonerated before this Court as to the alleged commission of offence that there is no cogent, corroborative, clinching and consistent evidence before this Court to prove the guilt of the accused. The evidence of PW-1 itself create reasonable doubt as to the alleged commission of offences. The trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts.
re-appreciation of evidence on record, I do not find any illegalities / infirmities in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also keeping in mind of the aforesaid decisions, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
Regarding Point No.2:
ORDER
I. Appeal is dismissed.
II. The judgment passed by the I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in
Spl.C.No.42/2013 dated 11.07.2014 is confirmed.
III. Registry to send the copy of the judgment along with
TCR to the trial Court.
Sd/JUDGE
JY
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 CT: BHK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court has made out grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court?
What order should be passed by the High Court in the dismissal of the appeal against acquittal?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Motiram Padu Joshi & Others v. State of MaharashtraFollowed¶49
Motiram Padu Joshi & Others v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 676 · Who else cites this
Munishamappa & Others v. State of Karnataka & Connected AppealsFollowed¶63
Munishamappa & Others v. State of Karnataka & Connected Appeals reported in 2019 SCC ONLINE 69 · Who else cites this
Hari Ram & Others v. State of RajasthanFollowed¶68
Hari Ram & Others v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2000 SCC ONLINE 933 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora RamFollowed¶74
State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE 684 · Who else cites this
Mahavir Singh v. State of Madhya PradeshFollowed¶80
Mahavir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2016) 10 SCC 220 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
SMT. RUKMINI, W/O B.M. KUMAR
STATE
P.L. PRAMOD
P.T. NANDAKUMAR
SANDESH
P.M. RAGHU
G BASAVARAJA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
