Dismissed

State of Karnataka v. Mallappa S/O Swarevva Doddamani

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2024CRL.A/100083/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal by the State against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court reviewed whether the trial court erred in acquitting accused persons of offences under the IPC. The court held the acquittal was supported by the evidence and dismissed the appeal, maintaining the lower courts' decision.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; judgment of acquittal affirmed.

State of Karnataka Vs Mallappa S/O Swarevva… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100083 OF 2019 (A)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,SAVANOOR POLICE STATION, HAVERI DISTRICT, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶8

APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI M.M. KHANNUR, AGA)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MALLAPPA S/O. SWAREVVA DODDAMANI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,

¶12

MAHADEVAPPA S/O. SWAREVVA DODDAMANI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,

¶13

YALLAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA DODDAMANI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,

¶14

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

GUDDAPPA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA DODDAMANI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,

¶16

SMT. DEVAKKA S/O. NAGAPPA KALER, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶17

SMT. GANGAVVA D/O. SWAREVVA DODDAMANI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶18

ALL ARE R/O: NADINEERALAGI, TQ: SAVANUR,

¶19

DIST: HAVERI.

¶20

RESPONDENTS (BY MISS. PRIYANKA Y.UPADHYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; NOTICE TO R6 IS SERVED)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 29.08.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI IN CRL. A. NO.107/2015 AND ETC.,

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Prl. District & Sessions Judge at Haveri (for short ‘appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No. 107/2015 dated 29.08.2018 by setting the judgment of conviction passed by the learned JMFC, Savanur (for short ‘trial Court’) in C.C. No. 31/2014 dated 26.11.2015.

¶27

Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

¶28

The brief relevant facts leading to this appeal is that the Sub Inspector of Police, Savanur Police Station submitted chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/S 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 504 read with Sec. 149 of IPC. It is alleged that on 27.06.2003 at about 10.30 p.m. at Nadineeralagi village, on the road the accused formed unlawful assembly and abused CW4 in filthy words; accused nos.2 and 3 have caused hurt to CW4 and 6 by means of wooden club and stone respectively; accused nos. 1, 3 and 4 have caused hurt to CW4 and 5 with their bare hands; accused nos.5 and 6 have

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶30

tried to outrage modesty to CW4 by pulling her hair. Thus the accused have committed the offences punishable u/S 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 504 read with Sec. 149 of IPC.

¶31

After filing chargesheet case was registered in C.C. No. 31/2014 on the file of learned Civil Judge & JMFC, Savanur. In pursuance of the summons issued, the accused appeared before the Court and released on bail. On hearing the parties, the trial Court has framed charge for the alleged offences and same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶32

To prove the case of the prosecution, in all 13 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 13; 8 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to 8 and material objects are marked as M.O.s.1 and 2. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement u/S 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused have totally denied the evidence appearing against them as false but they have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. Having heard both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable u/S 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504 read

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶34

with Sec. 149 of IPC and acquitted them for the offence punishable u/S 354 read with Sec. 149 of IPC. The trial Court imposed sentence as per order of sentence. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred appeal before the learned Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Haveri in Criminal Appeal No. 107/2015. The appellate Court by judgment dated 29.08.2018 allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused for the offences punishable u/S 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504 read with Sec. 149 of IPC. Being aggrieved by judgment of acquittal rendered by the appellate Court, the State has preferred this appeal.

¶35

Sri Madanmohan M. Khannur, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the judgment of acquittal rendered by the appellate Court is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. Hence, same is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside.

¶36

PW1-Raju son of Mallappa Doddamani is the complainant and eyewitness; PWs.4 to 7 are the injured eyewitness who have supported the prosecution case. The appellate Court rejected their evidence on the ground that they are relatives

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶38

and interested witnesses. Evidence of PW7 is rejected on the ground that he is the relative of injured. The reasoning assigned by the appellate Court is contrary to law in view of the fact that the aforesaid witnesses have no ill will against the accused to falsely implicate them in the case. Therefore, the said finding of the appellate Court is not sustainable and same is liable to be set aside.

¶39

It is submitted that evidence of injured witnesses has acquired special status in the eye of law. The said principle is laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2017 SCC Crl. 226 . Therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate Court is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

¶40

He would further submit that evidence of eyewitnesses and the injured is further corroborated by the evidence of PW11-Doctor who has treated them and issued wound certificates as per Exs.P.6 and P.7. The Doctor has deposed before the Court regarding nature of injuries and duration of treatment. The evidence of Doctor is rejected by the appellate Court on the ground that which of the accused assaulted with which weapon. The said finding is inconsistent as the Doctor is

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶42

not supposed to speak regarding use of weapons by the accused. The appellate Court has not given any acceptable and reasonable findings for discarding the truthful evidence of the prosecution. The appellate Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded judgment of conviction to acquittal which is not sustainable in law and sought for allowing this appeal.

¶43

As against this, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable u/S 354 r/w 149 IPC against which the prosecution has not preferred any appeal but the accused have preferred appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. That there is abnormal delay in filing the complaint. Evidence of injured witnesses has not been supported by the medical evidence. There is no consistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence and there are material omissions and contradictions in the prosecution evidence. Absolutely there is no evidence to attract the offence as to the unlawful assembly, rioting, etc. Accordingly, the appellate Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶45

facts which needs no interference. On all these grounds sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶46

Having heard the arguments of both sides and on perusal of appeal papers, the following points would arise for consideration.

¶47

(1) Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court requires interference?

¶48

(2) What order?

¶49

My answers to the above points are as follows:

¶50

Point No.1 : In the negative

¶51

Point No.2 : As per final order for the following

¶52

REASONS

¶53

Regarding Point No.1:

¶54

Before appreciating the evidence on record, it is necessary to mention here the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case as regards the power of appellate court in the appeal arising out of the judgment of acquittal, so also, the power of appellate Court for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶57

14. In the case of MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI & OTHERS v. STATE

¶58

OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 676, at paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is held thus:

¶59

“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:-

¶60

“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.

¶61

(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.

¶62

(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

¶63

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶65

acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

¶66

(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.

¶67

(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.”

¶68

In the case of MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v. STATE OF

¶69

KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS reported in 2019 SCC ONLINE 69, at paragraph 16 of the judgment it is held as under:

¶70

“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

¶71

10 -

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶73

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.…”

¶74

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:

¶75

“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 misappropriation 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

¶76

11 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶77

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.…”

¶78

In the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KISTOORA RAM

¶79

reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE 684, at paragraph 8 of the judgment it is held as under:

¶80

“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.”

¶81

In the case of MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA

¶82

PRADESH reported in (2016)10 SCC 220, at paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is observed thus:

¶83

12 -

¶84

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶85

“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.”

¶86

Now, let me advert to the facts of the case, so also the judgment of the trial Court. I have carefully examined the materials placed before the Court. It is the case of the prosecution that the Sub Inspector of Police, Savanur Police Station submitted chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/S 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 504 read with Sec. 149 of IPC. It is alleged that on 27.06.2003 at about 10.30 p.m. at Nadineeralagi village, on the road the accused formed unlawful assembly and abused CW4 in filthy words; accused nos.2 and 3 have caused hurt to CW4 and 6 by means of wooden club and stone respectively; accused nos. 1, 3 and 4 have caused hurt to CW4 and 5 with their bare hands;

¶87

13 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶88

accused nos.5 and 6 have tried to outrage modesty to CW4 by pulling her hair. Thus the accused have committed the offences punishable u/S 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 504 read with Sec. 149 of IPC. To prove the case of the prosecution, in all 13 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 13; 8 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to 8 and material objects are marked as M.O.s.1 and 2.

¶89

PW1-Raju son of Mallappa Doddamani is stated to be the complainant and injured. He has deposed that CW4, CW5 and CW6 are his father, brother and mother respectively; accused are his relatives; he is working in Kozikode, Kerala; once in three months he used to come to his village. On 27.06.2013 at 10.30 p.m. the accused came in front of their house and abused them in filthy language as to the putting of a bund. When CW4 told them that they have not put up any bund, the accused picked up quarrel. Accused no.2 gave blow to CW4 on his right side head; accused nos.1, 2 and 4 assaulted CW4 with their legs; When CWs.5 and 6 intervened and pacify the galata, accused nos.3 and 4 assaulted him with hands; accused no.3 gave blow to CW6 with stick on his forehead. Accused nos.5 and 6 caught hold of the hair of CW6 and pulled her; accused

¶90

14 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶91

nos.1, 3 and 4 assaulted CW5 with legs. CWs.8 to 10 intervened and separated galata. They the injured were shifted to District Hospital, Haveri in an Ambulance for treatment. On 28.06.2013 he lodged complaint to the Police as per Ex.P.1.

¶92

PW2-Parasappa and PW3-Mahaboobalikhan are said to be the attestors to the spot panchanama-Ex.P.2. But they have not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶93

PW4-Mallappa has deposed in his evidence that CW1 and 5 are his children, CW6 is his wife and CW7 is the daughter-inlaw; the accused are his brothers. At about one year back at 10.30 p.m. while he was sleeping in his house the accused came near their house and questioned as to who has constructed the bund and then abused them in filthy language. Then he asked them not to abuse, then accused no.3 gave blow to his wife with stick on her forehead; accused no.2 gave blow to him with stick on his right side head. When CWs.1, 5 and 7 tried to intervene and separate the galata, the accused also assaulted them. However, CW9 and 10 have pacified the galata. The injured were shifted to District Hospital, Haveri in an Ambulance for treatment.

¶94

15 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶95

PW5-Ramesh has deposed in his evidence that CW1, 4, 6 and 7 are his younger brother, father, mother and wife respectively. At about two years back one day at about 10.00 p.m. when he was in the house, the accused no.1 came and questioned as to the construction of bund to the gatar and abused them in filthy language. On questioning the same by his father, all the accused abused in filthy language; accused nos.1 and 2 caught hold of his father, accused no.2 gave blow to his father on his right side forehead; accused nos.3 and 4 assaulted his father; when he, CW1, 6 and 7 tried to pacify the galata and rescue his father then accused nos.3 and 4 have kicked him and made him to fall down and then assaulted him; accused nos.2 to 4 have also assaulted CW1; accused no.2 gave blow to his mother on her forehead with stick; accused nos.5 and 6 have caught hold of the hair of her mother and pulled her; CWs.7 to 9 intervened and separated galata. Thereafter they were shifted to District Hospital in an ambulance for treatment; CW1 lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1.

¶96

PW6-Basavva has deposed in her evidence that CWs.1 and 5 are her sons, CW4 is her husband and CW7 is her sisterin-law; she is acquainted with the accused who are residing by

¶97

16 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶98

the side of her house; at about two years back, one day at 10.00 p.m. when they were going to sleep the accused no.1 came and questioned her husband as to construction of bund and then abused. The same was questioned by her husband, then accused no.1 caught hold of her husband, accused no.2 assaulted with stick; accused no.3 assaulted her with stone to her forehead; when herself, CWs1 and 5 went to pacify the galata, accused no.3 assaulted CW5, accused no.4 assaulted CW1; accused nos.5 and 6 have pulled her saree, made her to fall down; CWs.7 to 9 have pacified and separated galata. The injured were shifted to District Hospital in an ambulance for treatment.

¶99

PW7-Renuka has deposed that CWs.4 and 6 are her in laws; CW5 is her husband and CW1 is her brother in law; on 27.06.2013 at about 10.30 p.m. all the accused came in front of their house, accused no.1 questioned as to putting up of vaddu to the drainage, then accused no.2 gave blow to her father in law with club on his head; accused also assaulted CW1 and her husband and mother in law; accused no.3 assaulted her mother in law with stick on her head; accused nos.3 and 4 assaulted her husband; CWs. 8 to 10 pacified and separated

¶100

17 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶101

galata. Then the injured were shifted to District Hospital in an ambulance for treatment. Police have recorded her statement.

¶102

PW8-Mantesh, PW9-Malleshappa and PW10-Fakirappa are stated to be the eyewitnesses to the incident but they turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Even in the cross examination they have categorically denied the statements recorded by the investigating officer u/S 161 Cr.P.C. which are marked as per Exs.P.3 to P.5.

¶103

PW11-Dr.Mallikarjun is the Medical Officer, District Hospital, Haveri. He has deposed as to the examination of the injured CWs.4 and 6 and also issuance of wound certificates as per Exs.P.6 and P.7. PW12-Shambhulinga, PC 805, Bankapur P.S. and PW13-Ramesh, PSI have deposed as to their respective part of investigation.

¶104

The alleged incident took place on 27.06.2013. Ex.P.1complaint came to be filed on 28.06.2013 at 18 hours. FIR reached the Court as per Ex.P.8 on 29.06.2013 at 10.30 a.m. Ex.P.8-FIR reveals that the place of accident is at the distance of 25 kms from the Police Station. Though the Police have received the complaint on 28.06.2013 at 18 hours, they have

¶105

18 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶106

submitted FIR to the Court on the next day, i.e., on 29.06.2013 at 10.30 a.m. That there is delay in filing the complaint and also submitting FIR to the Court. The investigating officer has not explained anything in this regard.

¶107

Ex.P.6 and P.7 reveal that Mallappa Shivappa and Basavva were admitted to the hospital on 27.06.2013 at 10.30 a.m. with the history of assault and injured persons were first treated by the Doctor on 28.06.2013 at 12.40a.m. Though the injured Mallappa shivappa and Basavva, PW4 and PW6 went to the hospital with the history of assault, the Medical officerPW11 has not registered the case in Medico-Legal Case (MLC) Register and intimated the same to the concerned Police Station.

¶108

PW11-Dr.Mallikarjun, the Medical Officer and the investigating officer have not whispered anything as to non registration of Medico-legal Case though the injured admitted to the hospital with the history of assault. Evidence of Dr.Mallikarjun and the wound certificate does not indicate as to the name of the accused and also the alleged weapons used for commission of offence. If really, PWs.4 and 6 were assaulted

¶109

19 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶110

by the accused as alleged by the prosecution, they would have disclosed names of accused before the Medical officer, but they have not done so. Additionally, the wound certificates, Exs.P.6 and P.7 reveal that both the injured were accompanied with their son Raju, who is the complainant. When the injured accompanied their son Raju who has lodged complaint to the Police and also the eyewitnesses would have disclosed names of the accused before the Medical Officer, but he has not done so. Both the injured have taken treatment as outpatients. In that circumstance, PW1 would have filed complaint at the earliest point of time. Instead of that he has lodged complaint to the Police on 28.06.2013 at 18 hours. Even after receiving this complaint, the Police have not submitted the FIR to the Court on the same day. Instead of that they have submitted FIR to the Court on 28.06.2013 at 10.30 a.m.

¶111

FIR-Ex.P.8 reveals that date of sending FIR to the Court on 28.06.2013 at 18.30 hours but the learned Magistrate has endorsed on the FIR that he has received the FIR on 29.06.2013 at 10.30 a.m. The conduct of the complainant and also the concerned Police will create doubt as to the alleged accident as the prosecution has failed to explain the delay in

¶112

20 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶113

filing the complaint and also delay in submitting FIR to the Court.

¶114

32. Ex.P.6-wound certificate reveals that Mallappa Shivappa

¶115

has sustained the following injuries.

¶116

“(1) Lacerated wound present over right temporal region measuring 8x6 cms;

¶117

(2) Abberrated contusion present over last knee joint.

¶118

According to my opinion the above said injuries no.(1) and (2) are simple in nature. The above said injuries may be caused within 6 hours. The injuries may be caused due to using of hard and sharp object.”

¶119

Ex.P.7-wound certificate reveals that Basavva has sustained the following injuries. “(1) Deep lacerated wound present over forehead measuring 4 x 2 cms.

¶120

According to my opinion the above said injury No.(1) is simple in nature.”

¶121

The trial Court has observed in the judgment that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused nos.5 and 6 tried to outrage the modesty of CW6 by pulling her saree. PWs.1, 4,

¶122

5 and 7 have also reproduced the same in their chief examination. Accordingly, the trial Court has acquitted the

¶123

21 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶124

accused for the offence u/S 354 R/W 149 of IPC. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of acquittal pertaining to offence punishable u/S 354 r/w 149 of IPC.

¶125

On examination of the material evidence on record it is clear that none of the witnesses have deposed as to the unlawful assembly constituted by the accused and committed rioting. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable u/S 143, 147, 148 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC.

¶126

With regard to the offence punishable u/S 323 and 324 of IPC is concerned, as discussed above, there is no cogent, convincing, corroborative, believable and clinching evidence before the Court.

¶127

The prosecution has also failed to establish the case against the accused for the offence punishable u/S 504 r/w 149 IPC as the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of Sec. 504 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC.

¶128

22 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9561 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2019

¶129

Considering all these aspects, the appellate Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts which needs no interference.

¶130

Even on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record and also keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I do not find any error/infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate Court. Accordingly, I answer point no.1 in the negative.

¶131

40. Point No.2:For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/JUDGE

BVV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

State of Karnataka v. Mallappa S/O Swarevva Doddamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. Mallappa S/O Swarevva Doddamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Balachandra Setty S/O M.. Rangaiah Setty Vs Mr.D.Rudrapathi S/O D. Ayyalappa

Tippeswamy S/O Giriyappa Agadi Vs Nagaraj S/O Hanappa Kakkaragol

State of Karnataka Vs Basappa S/O Tipanna Kurpi

State by Sub Inspector of Police Vs Udas Madhu Kolvekar

S.Krishna Reddy Vs Y. Ravikumar S/O Y. Leela Prasad

State of Karnataka, Vs Joseph @ Francis Ambroise Luis