Criminal appeal filed by the State challenging acquittal of an accused for causing damage to a railway gate under Section 160(2) of the Railway Act. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses and relied solely on official witnesses, dismissing the appeal.
The criminal appeal was dismissed.
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: 2024:KHC-D:7671 CRL.A No. 100107 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100107 OF 2017 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR RPF, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, BAGALKOT. THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, AGA)
AND:
MAHAGUNDAPPA S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA TIRAKAPPANAVAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. BANK COLONY BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SMT. VINAYA KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI N.R. KUPPELLUR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 15.12.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOT IN C.C.NO.1279/2012 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 15.12.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOT IN C.C.NO.1279/2012 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 160(2) OF RAILWAYS ACT 2003 AND ETC.,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7671 CRL.A No. 100107 of 2017
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The State has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 15.12.2016 passed in C.C.No.1279/2012 by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC., Bagalkot (for short, ‘Trial Court’).
the Police station about the accused. Thereafter, railway police visited the spot, verified the things and after thorough investigation, IO has submitted chargesheet against the accused person for commission of offence punishable under Section 160(2) of the Railway Act, 1989. After filing of chargesheet, cogent action was taken against the accused, case was registered in C.C.No.1279/2012, summons was issued to the accused, in response to summons accused appeared and thereafter, he was enlarged on bail. On hearing to the prosecution, the Trial Court has framed the charges for commission of offence punishable under Section 160(2) of the Railway Act and same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
witnesses, but he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
perusal of the material placed on record, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment of acquittal. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State is before this Court in this appeal.
The evidence of PW1 has not been properly read and appreciated by the Trial Court. He would submit that the Trial Court has acquitted the accused on the ground that inhabitants of the locality have not been cited as witnesses for the
panchanama and neighbouring persons of the locality have not been cited and examined by the prosecution. The Trial Court has discarded the case of the prosecution on the ground that the gate number to which the damage was caused by the accused is not mentioned in Ex.P1-complaint. Further, he would submit that all the witnesses who supported the case of the prosecution have categorically stated about the damage caused to the L.C. gate and that itself is sufficient to hold that the accused has caused damage to the L.C. gate and the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused. On all these grounds, he prays for allowing the appeal.
interference. On all these grounds, he prays for dismissing the appeal.
Whether the prosecution has made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal?
REASONS
Court. PW1, the author of the FIR-Ex.P1 has admitted the fact that, at the time of conducting the panchanama, the respectable inhabitants of the said locality were present and the railway officers have not made any attempt to record statement of those persons nor they have called the inhabitants of the locality for the purpose of conducting the panchanama. The panchanama is absolutely silent with respect to non-examination of the inhabitants of the said locality. PW1
was working at L.C. Gate No.44 which is situated near Shikkeri wherein the complaint filed by him marked as Ex.P1 is absolutely silent in this regard.
evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses to substantiate the case of the prosecution. All the witnesses examined are official witnesses who are interested witnesses.
re-examination of the entire material placed on record, I do not find any errer/legal infirmity or illegality in the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Hence, I answer above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
RH/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution has made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal?
Whether the lack of independent witnesses and official witnesses' interest vitiates the prosecution case?
4 provisions across 3 enactments
State of Karnataka
Mahagundappa
G Basavaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
