State appealed against acquittal of two accused charged under Sections 307, 504 r/w 34 IPC for a knife assault. Hostile panch witnesses, unrecovered spot identification, confession-tainted mahazars and missing medical opinion on the knife left guilt unproven; the acquittal was upheld.
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, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100203 OF 2020 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, P.D. HALLI POLICE STATION, BELLARY RURAL CIRCLE, DIST: BALLARI, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
…APPELLANT
Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.)
AND:
THIRUMALA NAGARA CAMP, BALLARI-583101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 27/08/2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI IN SESSIONS CASE NO.35/2018 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 27/08/2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI IN SESSIONS CASE NO.35/2018 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 504 AND 307 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
This appeal is filed by the State under Section 378 of
Cr.P.C., under being aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused in S.C.No.35/2018 by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari by his judgment dated 27.08.2019.
The case of the prosecution as it unfolds from the charge sheet papers is that on 24.07.2017 when the PW.1Ram Babu was in his house, the accused Nos.1 and 2 took the motorcycle belonging to PW.8-Hanumakka and her husband PW.5-Govinda and went to Ram Babu’s house and saying that they want to talk to him, took him on the said motorcycle and went near the Lakkamma’s land on the way to Asundi; at about 3.15 p.m., accused No.1 started abusing the PW.1 in filthy words alleging that he had developed illicit relationship with his sister Nagamma (PW.7); took out a knife (M.O.1) and then stabbed the PW.1 while the accused No.2 had held him tightly from the back side. It is alleged that accused No.1 stabbed the PW.1 on his stomach and his
left thigh; when PW.1 shouted, Marenna and Ramakrishana (PWs.3 and 10) who were in the vicinity saw the same and came to the spot and seeing them, accused Nos.1 and 2 fled away on their motorcycle. Thereafter, the said Marenna and Ramakrishna informed Raghavendra (PW4), the brother of the PW.1, who came to the spot and took the injured PW.1 to VIMS Hospital, Ballari. While PW.1 was in the hospital, PW.12-Investigating Officer went to the hospital and obtained the written first information from him and registered the same in Crime No.47/2017 of P.D.Halli Police Station and launched investigation.
accused on the basis of their voluntary statement, went to the spot conducted the spot mahazar and seized a shirt belonging to the PW.1 from the spot which is blood stained and thereafter, at the instance of the accused seized the motorcycle used by them for taking the PW.1 to the said spot. Thereafter, the PW.12 also recovered a knife used by the accused for commission of the offence which they had hidden near the bush and after subjecting the seized
articles, cloths etc. to FSL examination, recorded the statement of the witnesses and completed the investigation. Ultimately, a charge sheet was filed against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504, 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
Sri.M.B.Gundawade and the arguments by learned counsel Sri.H.R.Deshpande, appearing for the accused were heard.
submit that the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court is not sustainable in law since the Trial Court has not bestowed it’s attention to the testimony of PW.1 and PW.10 who are material witnesses in the case. He submits that, the testimony of PW.1 who is injured in the incident and testimony of the PW.10 who is eye witness to the incident is not properly appreciated by the Trial Court. He submits that the hostility of other witnesses will not establish the innocence of the accused and therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law. It is submitted hat the Trial Court has unnecessarily and without cogent reasons disbelieved the testimony of PW.1 and PW.10 and overlooked
the fact that the material object No.1 which was used in commission of the offence had been seized at the instance of the accused. Therefore, he submits that the Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused.
the prosecution. Therefore, he submits that judgment of acquittal does not require any indulgence by this Court.
witnesses who had lent the motorcycle used by the accused for commission of the offence. Both these witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The PW.6 Gadilingappa is also hear say witnesses and he also has not supported the case of the prosecution. The PW.9 Dr.Shadrock happens to be the medical officer who examined PW.1 and had issued wound certificate as per Ex.P.9. Investigating Officer of this case is examined as PW.12.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13110-DB CRL.A No. 100203 of 2020
CHANDRAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA1 in para No.42
lays down the following principles:
“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of 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 emphasize 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.
1 (2007) 4 SCC 415
(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 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.”
14. Thereafter, the Apex Court in the case of Jafrudheen
vs. State of Kerala2 in para 25 held as below:
“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court
2 (2022) 8 SCC 440
rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”
the accused came and asked him to accompany them since they want to talk to him. The accused No.1 was riding the motorcycle and the PW.1 and accused No.2 were the pillion riders. They took him to Lakkamma’s land near the canal and alleging that he had illicit relationship with the sister of the accused No.2 (wife of the accused No.1) i.e. NagammaPW.7, the accused No.1 stabbed him on his stomach and accused No.2 held him tightly. When he was pleading for mercy and shouting, the PW.3 and PW.10 came to the spot and seeing them accused fled away on the motorcycle. He states that he had informed his brother-Raghavendra about the incident and he came in a car and took him to the hospital. He has identified the knife which is marked as M.O. No.1 and when the shirt worn by the accused was shown to him he had identified and the same is marked as M.O. No.2. A lungi was marked as M.O.No.3 and it is not known to whom it belongs to the motorcycle was also identified by him and the same is marked as M.O.No.4.
of the accused No.1 was his friend and therefore, he was
visiting the house of accused No.1. It is further elicited that his cloths were also blood stained. It is elicited that he took treatment for about one and half month in the hospital. It was suggested to him that when accused No.2 was not in the house, he had been to his house and had tried to sexually assault the PW.7-Nagamma and she shouted he fled and while running away from his house, fell down and sustained injuries. Therefore, when the accused had been to police station to lodge the complaint, using political influence, a false case has been registered against accused Nos.1 and 2. Thus, it is clear that the PW.7 happens to be the wife of accused No.2 and sister of accused No.1.
about 3 p.m. he and Marenna were going near the land of Lakkamma and he saw that accused Nos.1 and 2 had taken the PW.1 on the motorcycle and accused No.1 had stabbed the PW.1, while accused No.2 held the hands of the PW.1. He states that he went to the spot and intervened in the quarrel and rescued PW.1 and he had informed the PW.4. Then injured was shifted to the hospital. In the cross
examination, it is elicited that the clothes of the PW.1 were blood stained and he was shifted to the hospital. He has denied the suggestion that he did not see any incident and PW.3-Marenna was not with him.
place and spot mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P.3. From the spot, shirt belonging to PW.1-Ram Babu was seized and the said shirt is marked as M.O.No.5. Thereafter, the accused led the PW.12 and panchas to the place where they had hidden the knife M.O.No.1. The knife was seized under the mahazar as per Ex.P.17.
with the PW.10-Ramkrishna has turned hostile to the prosecution. Therefore, his testimony in this regard is not of any help. Moreover, it contradicts the testimony of the PW.10.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13110-DB CRL.A No. 100203 of 2020
What is identified by the PW.1 is only the shirt and the lungi belonging to the accused.
document has to be discarded and eschewed. If such aspect of the confession is eschewed from the Ex.P2, P3 and P17, then except the testimony of the PW.12, there is nothing on record which has led the Investigating Officer to discovery of the spot. The shirt of the PW.1 which was recovered from the spot is not identified by PW.1 and therefore, this link is not established.
the accused in the mahazars which are at Ex.P2, P3 and P17 which is unacceptable under law. The basic necessity of the investigation is not complied with by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Addl. SPP that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged illicit relationship between the accused and the PW.7Nagamma is also not established and therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the guilt of the accused. For these reasons we do not find any cause for interference in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, point raised above is answered in the negative and the following order is passed:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial
Court in S.C.No.35/2018 on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari is hereby confirmed.
Sd/(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE
HMB LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 25
3 issues framed by the court
Whether prosecution established accused assaulted PW.1 with a knife with intention to commit murder.
Whether recovery evidence (mahazars Ex.P2, P3, P17) is proved despite hostile panch witnesses and confession-laden documents.
Whether appellate court may disturb trial court acquittal given double presumption favouring the accused.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandrappa vs. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶13
(2007) 4 SCC 415 · Who else cites this
Jafrudheen vs. State of KeralaRelied on¶14
(2022) 8 SCC 440 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
State of Karnataka, represented by Police Sub-Inspector, P.D. Halli Police Station
Nagi Reddy s/o Eranna
Raja s/o Sunkappa
B.M. Shyam Prasad
C.M. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
