State appeal against acquittal of accused in an unlawful assembly and assault case arising from a case-and-counter-case over installation of a petrol bunk. Injured witnesses' testimony was inconsistent on overt acts, independent witnesses turned hostile, and names were not disclosed to the doctor. Acquittal affirmed.
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:9366 CRL.A No. 100157 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100157 OF 2017 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY NAVALGUND POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
(BY SRI M.M. KHANNUR, AGA)
AND:
Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(NOTE THAT RESPONDENT NO.4 HAS EXPIRED DURING THE TRIAL, HENCE THE CASE AGAINST R4 IS ABATED)
(BY SRI GANAPATI M.BHAT, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 23.09.2016 PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO.164 OF 2012 BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, DHARWAD AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9366 CRL.A No. 100157 of 2017
JUDGMENT
The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned II Addl. Dist. Sessions & Special Judge, Dharwad in S.C. No. 164/2012 dated 23.09.2016. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
injuries and at that time one Ningappa and Shivappa Vanadurbi came and pacified the quarrel. After the incident complaint was lodged. The police registered the case in Crime No. 187/2010.
After investigation the investigating officer has submitted charge sheet against the accused and case was numbered as C.C. No. 115/2011. In response to the summons, accused appeared before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor had filed application u/S 323 Cr.P.C. praying to commit the case to the Court of Sessions for trial as there was a counter case pending before the learned I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Dharwad in Special Case No. 22/2010. Accordingly, case was committed to the Court of Sessions/ Special Judge and registered in S.C. No. 164/2012. Accused appeared before the Special Court and released on bail. Charges were framed against the accused for the alleged commission of offences and same were read-over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
M.Os.1 to 4. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of accused u/S 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded as to the incriminating evidence appearing against them. The accused have totally denied the evidence but they did not choose to lead any defence evidence.
appreciation of the prosecution witnesses which are enemical and interested.
Point No.1 : In the negative Point No.2 : As per final order for the following
REASONS
Regarding Point No.1:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9366 CRL.A No. 100157 of 2017
(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
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9366 CRL.A No. 100157 of 2017
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.”
KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS reported in 2019 SCC ONLINE 69, at paragraph 16 of the judgment it is held as under:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9366 CRL.A No. 100157 of 2017
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.…”
“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.…”
“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.”
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.”
marked as Exs.P.1 to P.12; 4 material objects are marked as M.Os.1 to 4.
are treated as hostile with the permission of the Court and cross examined by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. During the course of cross examination also the prosecution has not elicited any favourable answers to substantiate the case fo the prosecution, besides both the witnesses have categorically denied the statement recorded by the investigating officer u/S 161 Cr.P.C. which are marked as Exs.P.3 and P.4.
and separated galata. Accused abused them in filthy language and went to the hospital.
went to the hospital with the history of assault brought by Navalagund Police with history of assault by axe and sticks. All the injured went to the Police Station before taking treatment. Thereafter Police shifted them to the hospital for treatment as all the injured came with the history of assault with axe and sticks.
the accused have assaulted to these injured as alleged by the prosecution, the material injured persons would have disclosed
names of the accused before the Medical Officer. These material lapses will create doubt as to the alleged incident.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9366 CRL.A No. 100157 of 2017
accused and the complainant, the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and acquitted the accused.
35. Point No.2: For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
BVV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal in a case and counter case involving unlawful assembly and assault required interference?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Motiram Padu Joshi & Others v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶12
2018 SCC ONLINE SC 676 · Who else cites this
Chandrappa v. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶12
(2007) 4 SCC 415 · Who else cites this
Munishamappa & Others v. State of Karnataka & Connected AppealsRelied on¶13
2019 SCC ONLINE 69 · Who else cites this
Hari Ram & Others v. State of RajasthanRelied on¶14
2000 SCC ONLINE 933 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora RamRelied on¶15
2022 SCC ONLINE 684 · Who else cites this
Mahavir Singh v. State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶16
(2016)10 SCC 220 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Karnataka represented by Navalgund Police Station
Mallappa S/o Shivalingappa Ronad
Suresh Shivalingappa Ronad
Siddappa Shivalingappa Ronad
Mahadevappa Kallappa Kale
G Basavaraja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
