State of Karnataka Vs Dayananda Poojari — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

State of Karnataka Vs Dayananda Poojari — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the State has made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of Acquittal? +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Answer to Point (i) is negative: the trial court properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts, and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal.

Key takeaways

The alleged eye-witnesses PWs 2, 3 and 5 were not named in the complaint Ex.P-1, undermining their claimed presence at the incident.ratio¶123
The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the alleged eyewitness witnesses only on 16.07.2013 and submitted them to the Court only at the time of filing the charge-sheet.ratio¶120
With no cogent, consistent and corroborative evidence, it is not safe to convict the accused solely on the interested testimony of PW-1 and other witnesses inserted in the charge-sheet subsequent to the incident.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

State appeal u/S.378(1) & (3) Cr.P.C. against acquittal in C.C.No.1305/2013 (Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, 18.09.2015) for offences u/ss 341, 504, 324, 506 IPC. Allegation: on 15.07.2013 the accused Dayananda Poojari obstructed PW-1 Sukumar Acharya at Dhanupooje Village on the pretext that he had stared at him, abused him ('Bevarsi Randemaga') and assaulted him with an umbrella, causing a chest abrasion and a blood injury on the lips, continuing till PW-2 and others arrived. Recounting Supreme Court dicta (Motiram Padu Joshi; Munishamappa; Hari Ram; State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram; Mahavir Singh) on the double presumption in favour of an acquitted accused and the reluctance to disturb acquittals where two views are possible, the High Court found: the names of alleged eyewitnesses PW-2/PW-3/PW-5 were absent from complaint Ex.P-1; their Section 161 statements (recorded 16.07.2013) were filed only with the charge-sheet; the FIR (Crime No.165/2013) reached the Court on 16.07.2013 at 10.05 am with the delay unexplained; PW-1's evidence was inconsistent with wound certificate Ex.P-3 and the out-patient slip (assault 'with hand'); PW-2 was silent on the upper-lip/lower-abdomen/testis injuries; and no motive was disclosed. Conviction on the interested testimony of PW-1 and witnesses inserted in the charge-sheet was held unsafe; the trial court's appreciation was proper, with no illegality or infirmity. Points answered: (i) Negative; (ii) as per final order. Appeal dismissed. (Justice G Basavaraja, 31.10.2025.)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43933 CRL.A No. 1601 of 2015

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1601 OF 2015 (A-)

BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANTWAL RURAL POLICE STATION, REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-574211

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN., ADVOCATE) AND:

DAYANANDA POOJARI, S/O BABU POOJARI, RESIDING AT DHANUPOOJE, THENKABELLURU VILLAGE & POST, BANTWALA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574211

…RESPONDENT

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. ANANDA K.V., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGIANST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 18.09.2015 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANTWAL, D.K., IN C.C.NO.1305/2013 ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 341,504,324 AND 506 OF IPC AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43933 CRL.A No. 1601 of 2015

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of Acquittal passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada in C.C.No.1305/2013 dated 18.09.2015.

For the sake convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

The brief facts leading to the appeal are that, the Bantwal Police submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under sections 341, 504, 324 and 506 of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 15.07.2013 around 6.30 pm when PW-1 was proceeding towards his house on his motor bike, he was obstructed and stopped at Dhanupooje Village by the accused Dayananda Poojary on the pretext that he had stared at him on the previous day. The accused immediately abused as “Bevarsi Randemaga” and assaulted PW-1 with his umbrella and caused abrasion on

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43933 CRL.A No. 1601 of 2015

HC-KAR

his chest and also caused blood injury on the lips of PW-1

and was continuously assaulting and threatening to his life until PW-2 and other members arrived. Thereby, accused has committed the alleged commission of offences.

After filing the charge sheet, cognizance was taken and summons was issued. In response of summons, the accused appeared before the Trial Court. Charges framed against the accused for the alleged commission of offences. Same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

To prove the guilt of the accused, 8 witnesses have been examined as PW-1 to PW-8 and 5 documents were marked as Ex.P-1 to P-5. The umbrella is marked as M.O.1.

On closure of prosecution side evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded and the accused has totally denied the evidence

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43933 CRL.A No. 1601 of 2015

HC-KAR

of prosecution witnesses but he did not choose to lead any

defense evidence on his behalf.

Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the judgment of Acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.

Learned HCGP Sri B.Lakshman would submit that the impugned judgment and order or acquittal passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence and materials on record are erroneous and unsustainable under law. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and the Trial Court has also failed to appreciate the evidence of PW-17 and PW-18 in its proper perspective. The Trial Court has also ignored the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4. On all these grounds, he sought for allowing this appeal.

Learned counsel for the respondent remained absent

and unrepresented. Hence, the arguments on behalf of the respondent is taken as nil.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43933 CRL.A No. 1601 of 2015

HC-KAR

Having heard the arguments on behalf of the

appellant-State and on perusal of the materials available on record, the following points would arise for my consideration:

(i) Whether the State has made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of Acquittal?

(ii) What Order?

My answer to the above points as under:

(i) Negative

(ii) As per final order.

Regarding Point No.1

Before appreciation of the evidence on record, it is necessary to refer the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope and power of Appellate Court in appeal against the order of acquittal.

In the case of MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI & OTHERS

v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2018 SCC

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43933 CRL.A No. 1601 of 2015

HC-KAR

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

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43933 CRL.A No. 1601 of 2015

HC-KAR

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. ”

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:

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43933 CRL.A No. 1601 of 2015

HC-KAR

“ 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 wellestablished 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. … ”

15. 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

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43933 CRL.A No. 1601 of 2015

HC-KAR

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 mis-appreciation 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 reappreciate 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

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:43933 CRL.A No. 1601 of 2015

HC-KAR

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.… ”

16. 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.”

17. 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

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43933 CRL.A No. 1601 of 2015

HC-KAR

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.”

I have examined the materials placed before this

Court. This case arises out of the complaint filed by PW-1 Sukumar Acharya. It is appropriate to mention here as to the contents of Ex.P-1. The same reads as follows:

"��ಾಂಕ 14-07-2013 ರಂದು �ಾನು ಮ�ೆ�ಂದ ನನ� �ೕ�ಾರು �ೈಕ�ನ�� ಧನುಪ��ೆ ಎಂಬ� � ೆ ಬರು� � ೆ . ಆಗ ದ#ಾನಂದ ಪ��ಾ$ಯವರು ನನ�ನು� ವಕ'ದೃ)*�ಂದ �ೋ,ದು ��ಾಂಕ 15-7-2013 ರಂದು -ೆ.�ೆ/ / 8-30 ಗಂ�ೆ�ೆ ಆ0ೋ1ಯು ಆತನ ಮ�ೆಯ ಹ��ರ 4ೆಲಸ 7ಾಡು��ರು9ಾಗ �ಾನು ಆ0ೋ1ಯ ಬ. :ೋ; <ೕವ= #ಾ4ೆ ನನ�ನು� ಆ $ೕ� �ೋ,ದು , ನ<�ಂದ ಏ�ಾದರೂ ತ?ಾ@;�ೆAೕ ಎಂದು 4ೇ.�ೆ . ಆಗ ಆ0ೋ1ಯು ನನ�ನು� ಉ�ೆ ೕCD - -ೇ9ಾDE ಎಂದು ಅ9ಾಚH ಶಬ ಗ.ಂದ -ೈದ , ನಂತರ �ಾನು ಅ��ಂದ :ೊರಟು ಧನುಪ��ೆ ಎಂಬ� � ೆ ಬಂ�ೆ , ಅ�ೇ �ನ ಸಂ�ೆ 6-00 ಗಂ�ೆ�ೆ ನನ�

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43933 CRL.A No. 1601 of 2015

HC-KAR

�ೕ�ಾರು �ೈಕ�ನ�� Kೕಸಲು ಹು,ಯನು� Lೆ�ೆದು4ೊಂಡು ಮ�ೆ ಕMೆ�ೆ ಬರು��ರು9ಾಗ ಆ0ೋ1ಯು ಧನುಪ��ೆ ಬN�ಾ*ಂO ಬ. ನನ� �ೕ�ಾರು �ೈಕಲನು� ರ�ೆ�ಯ�� ತMೆದು <��D - -ೇ9ಾDE ರಂMೆ ಮಗಆಗ <ೕನು ಏನು :ೇ.�ೆ ಎಂದು ತುಳQRನ�� -ೈದನು . :ಾಗೂ ಆತನ 4ೈಯ��ದ 4ೊMೆ�ಂದ ನನ� ಎಡ ಬ�ಯ ಎ�ೆ�ೆ ;ೕ$ದನು , :ಾಗೂ 4ಾಲುಗ.ಂದ ನನ� �ೊಂಟ4ೆS ತು.ದನು . ಆಗ ಅ� � ೆ Tಾ �ಾ 2 ರವರು ಬಂದರು . ಆತನು ಬರುವ=ದನು� �ೋ, ಆ0ೋ1ಯು ನನ�ೆ <ನ�ನು� Uೕವ ಸVತ Wಡುವ=�ಲ� ಎಂದು :ೇ. :ೋ;ರುLಾ � ೆ . ಆದುದ$ಂದ ದ#ಾನಂದ ಪ��ಾ$ಯ XೕYೆ Zಾನೂನು ಕ'ಮ 4ೈ�ೊಳ[-ೇ4ಾ; 4ೋ$4ೆ . ”

On the basis of the complaint filed on 15.07.2013,

the case was registered in Crime No.165/2013 against the accused for the commission of offences under sections

341, 504, 324 and 506 of IPC and First Information Report was submitted to the Court on 16.07.2013 at 10.05 am. The prosecution has not explained anything as to delay in submitting First Information Report to the Court. The wound certificate-Ex.P3 reveals that PW1-Sukumar

Acharya was admitted to the hospital on 15.07.2013 at 7.15 pm. PW1 was admitted to the Hospital with the history of assault by Dayanand with umbrella on the face

13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43933 CRL.A No. 1601 of 2015

HC-KAR

and on eye and scratched on the chest, stamped with foot

on abdomen and scrotum in front of bus-stand at Dhanupooje.

PW1 has deposed in his evidence that the accused has scratched with umbrella on the left side of his chest and kicked with his legs on his waist. The wound certificate reveals that the injured sustained with laceration 3 cm x 3 cm, inner aspect of upper lip and multiple linear abrasion in upper part of the chest and tenderness in the lower abdomen, testis. The out-patient slip issued by the Government Hospital, Bantwal reveals that the injured was assaulted by Dayanand with hand.

PW2 has not whispered anything as to accused assaulting to PW1 on his upper lip and lower abdomen and testis.

PW3-Jagadeesh Acharya, PW5-Ramdas, have also deposed as deposed by PW1 regarding assault made by

14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43933 CRL.A No. 1601 of 2015

HC-KAR

the accused. The names of these witnesses have not been disclosed in complaint Exhibit P1.

The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of these witnesses on 16.07.2013. The same were submitted to the Court only at the time of filing charge-sheet. If really, the alleged eye-witnesses PWs2, 3 and 5 were present at the time of alleged incident, the complainant would have mentioned their names in the complaint. But he has not done so. The Investigating Officer has not explained anything in this regard.

PW6 has deposed that he has recorded the statements of CWs2 to 4 on 16.07.2013. However, he has not explained as to the non-mentioning of their names in the complaint. Therefore, the delay in recording statement under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure and also delay in submitting the same before

the court, will create suspicious circumstances about the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses. The motive and intention of the accused to commit the offence has not

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:43933 CRL.A No. 1601 of 2015

HC-KAR

been disclosed by the prosecution. When there is no cogent, consistent and corroborative evidence, it is not safe to convict the accused solely on the interested testimony of PW1 and other witnesses, who have been inserted in the charge-sheet subsequent to the incident. As already discussed above, the evidence of PW1 is not consistent with the medical evidence. The trial court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and considering the facts and circumstances, as-also, keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions, I proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

Appeal is dismissed .

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48