1
IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD B ENCH
DATED THIS THE 5 T H DAY OF JANU ARY , 2021
PRESENT
T HE HON'B LE MR. J USTICE SREENIV AS HARISH KU MAR
AND
T HE HON'B LE MR. J USTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL APPEA L NO.100199/2 016
B ETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. B Y THE CIRCLE INS PECTOR OF POL ICE
MARY AMMANAHALLI POLICE STATION
B ALLARI DISTR ICT
THROUGH THE ADDL. ST AT E PUB LIC
PROSECU TOR,
ADVOCATE GENER AL OFFICE
HIGH COU RT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD B ENCH
....APP ELLANT .
(B Y SHRI V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP.)
AND:
1. B EST SCHOOL RAMAPPA
S/O. NET TAPPA
R/O. VIDYA NAGAR, B ALLARI
2. CHELLAGU RKI ANJ INAPPA
S/O. YERRAPPA
R/O. CHELLAGU RKI VILLA GE.
2
3. ANIL KUMAR S/O. DURGA PRASAD
R/O. COWL B AZ AAR, GOLLARA STREET ,
B ALLARI.
(DELETED BY COURT ORDER.)
4. NASIR S/O. SEKSH AVALLI
R/O. NEAR KOTEMALLESHWARA TEM PLE,
B ALLARI.
5. B ASHA @ VALI S/O. IQB AL
R/O. MILLER PET, B ALLARI.
6. K. ERANNA S/O. GADEPPA
R/O. BAPUJI NAGAR,
CHELU VADI STREET, B ALLARI.
7. JAGADIS H S/O. NINGAPPA
R/O. 2 N D CROSS, KAPPA GAL ROAD,
B ALLARI.
(DELETED BY COURT ORDER.)
8. J. VENKATESH S/O. T AYANNA
R/O. 6 T H CROSS, KAPPA GAL ROAD,
B ALLARI.
9. DEVDAS S/O. ERAPPA
R/O. VINAYAKA NAGAR, B ALLARI.
10. B EST SCHOOL RAMAPPA
S/O. NET TAPPA
R/O. VIDYA NAGAR, B ALLARI.
(DELETED BY COURT ORDER.)
11. CHELLAGGU RK I ANJINAPPA
S/O. YERRAPPA
R/O. CHELLAGU RKI VILLA GE
(DELETED BY COURT ORDER.)
12. ANIL KUMAR
S/O. DU RGA PRASAD
R/O. COWL B AZ AR,
GOL LARA STREET , B ALLARI.
3
13. NASIR S/O. SEKSH AVALLI
R/O. NEAR KOTEMALLESHWARA
TEMPLE, B ALLARI.
(DELETED BY COURT ORDER.)
14. B ASHA @ VALI S/O. IQB AL
R/O. MILLER PET, B ALLARI.
(DELETED BY COURT ORDER.)
15. K. ERANNA S/O. GADEPPA
R/O. BAPUJI NAGAR,
CHELU VADI STREET, B ALLARI.
(DELETED BY COURT ORDER.)
16. JAGADIS H S/O. NINGAPPA
R/O. 2 N D CROSS, KAPPA GAL ROAD,
B ALLARI.
(DELETED BY COURT ORDER.)
17. J. VENKATESH S/O. T AYANNA
R/O. 6 T H CROSS, KAPPA GAL ROAD,
B ALLARI.
(DELETED BY COURT ORDER.)
18. DEVDAS S/O. ERAPPA
R/O. VINAYAK NAGARR, B ALLARI.
(DELETED BY COURT ORDER.)
19. AB DU L KHADER S/O. HU SSAIN
R/O. 6 T H CROSS, KAPPA GAL ROAD,
B ALLARI.
20. GHOUSE S/O. MASTAN SAB
R/O. 6 T H CROSS, KAPPA GAL ROAD,
B ALLARI.
21. VIRU PAKSHI S/O. T AYANNA
R/O. 6 T H CROSS, KAPPA GAL ROAD,
B ALLARI.
22. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. LINGA PPA
R/O. 7 T H CROSS, KAPPA GAL ROAD,
B ALLARI.
4
23. RAMULU S/O. RAMAIAH
R/O. COWL B AZ AR, SWAT ANTRA
NAGAR, B ALLARI.
24. CHANDRASHEKAR RAGHAVENDRA
R/O. AVAMB AL, B ALLAR I.
(DELETED BY COURT ORDER.)
25. NAGESH S/O. LIN GAPPA
R/O. 6 T H CROSS, GANDHINAGAR,
B ALLARI.
26. MALLAIAH S/O. HO NNURAPPA
R/O. AVAMB AI, B ALLAR I.
27. MADHU S/O. THIMMAIAH
R/O. PATEL NAGAR , B ALLARI.
28. MANOHAR CHANDRASHEKAR
R/O. AVAMB AI, B ALLAR I.
29. B ASAVARAJ S/O. JAMB ANNA
R/O. GANDHINA GA R, B ALLARI.
30. B .M. SHANMUKH KU MAR
S/O. PARAMESHWARAPPA
R/O. KOPAGA L ROAD, B ALLARI.
31. MEHAB OOB B ASHA
S/O. SHAKSHAVALI
R/O. S.L.N., GUNTAKAL.
32. NAGARAJ S/O. MARENNA
R/O. ANATHAPUR ROAD,
B EHIND TARANATH HOSPITAL,
B ALLARI.
33. RAVI S/O. PRASAD
R/O. ASHOK NAGAR, B ALLARI.
34. MALLIKARJU NA S/ O. MALLAIAH
R/O. KOLAGAL RO AD, B ALLARI.
35. MAHESH S/O. SID DAPPA
R/O. 6 T H CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR,
B ALLARI.
5
36. GADIL INGA S/O. MAREPA
R/O. B. GONAL VIL LAGE, B ALLARI.
37. DOOD PERA S/O. IMAM SAB
R/O. SAT YAVANI NAGAR,
25 T H WARD, B ALLARI.
38. RAGHAVENDRA S/ O. KRISHNAPPA
R/O. KOLAGAL RO AD, B ALLARI.
39. SHIVAKESHAVA S/O. JNANAPPA
R/O. SAT YAVNI NAGAR,
NEAR MAREMMA TEMPLE, B ALLARI.
40. MALLAIAH S/O. NA RASAPPA
R/O. VINAYAKNAG AR, BALLARI.
41. RAMESH S/O. MALLAIAH
R/O. MILLER PET, B ALLARI.
42. HONNU R S/O. NEELAKANTAPPA
R/O. ALLIPU R, B ALLARI.
43. YERRISWAMY S/O. SHIVAMU RT HY
R/O. BASAVANAKUNTE,
DEVINAGAR, BALLARI.
44. PRASHANTH S/O. YERRISWAMY
R/O. TAILOR STREET , COWL B AZ AAR,
B ALLARI.
45. PARAMESHWARAP PA S/O. MALLI REDDY
R/O. 25 T H WARD,
NEAR PANNARAJ HOU SE, B ALLARI.
46. MAHAB ASHA S/O. SHAIK SAB ,
R/O. SIDDARTHA COLONY,
KAPPAGAL ROAD, B ALLARI.
47. B . RAJU S/O. RAMRAJU
R/O. MILLER PET , ANJINEYA TEMPLE,
B ALLARI.
48. LIN GANNA S/O. SHANKARAPPA
R/O. SIDDARTHA COLONY, B ALLARI.
6
49. SRIN IVAS S/O. ERANNA
R/O. NEAR PANNARAJU HOU SE,
B ALLARI.
50. PARAMESHWARA R AMACHANDRA
R/O. NEAR PANNARAJU HOU SE,
B ALLARI.
51. GADIL INGA S/O. ERAPPA
R/O. NEAR PANNARAJU HOU SE,
B ALLARI.
52. HARIJAN ERES HI S/O. ERANNA
R/O. SIDDARTHA COLONY,
B ALLARI.
53. VEERESH S/O. B ANGARAPPA
R/O. NEAR PANNARAJU HOU SE,
B ALLARI.
54. SANNA J AGAPPA S /O. NINGAPPA
R/O. NEAR PANNARAJU HOU SE,
B ALLARI.
(DELETED BY COURT ORDER.)
55. LAKSHMANA S/O. DAT TATREYA
R/O. NEAR PANNARAJU HOU SE,
B ALLARI.
56. SHANKAR S/O. MALLIKARJU NA
R/O. NEAR PANNARAJU HOU SE,
B ALLARI.
57. KOSIGI S/O. NARASAPPA
R/O. NEAR BRAHAMAIH TEMPLE,
KAPPAGTAL ROAD, BALLARI.
58. SHEKAR S/O. ERAMMA
R/O. NEAR PANNARAJU HOU SE,
B ALLARI.
59. RAMA MU RTHY S/O. RAMDAS
R/O. 4 T H CROSS, KAPPA GAL ROAD,
B ALLARI.
7
60. GAVIS IDDA S/O. OMKARAPPA
R/O. NEAR PANNARAJU HOU SE,
B ALLARI.
61. JAB EER S/O. RAJASAB
R/O. 9 T H CROSS, KAPPA GAL ROAD,
B ALLARI.
62. SAGAR S/O. NARAYANAPPA
R/O. 9 T H CROSS, KAPPA GAL ROAD,
B ALLARI.
63. HANU MANTHA S/O. THIPPESWAMY
R/O. NEAR PANNARAJU HOU SE,
B ALLARI.
64. IBRAHIM S/O. NABISAB
R/O. NEAR PANNARAJU HOU SE,
B ALLARI.
65. DURGANNA S/O. SHANKRAPPA
R/O. NEAR PANNARAJU HOU SE,
B ALLARI.
66. DODDA JAGAP PA S/O. NINGAPPA
R/O. NEAR PANNARAJU HOU SE,
B ALLARI.
67. LIN GANNA S/O. MALLAPPA
R/O. NEAR PANNARAJU HOU SE,
B ALLARI.
68. KU RUB AARA B HEEMNN
S/O. RAMAPPA
R/O. NEAR PANNARAJU HOU SE,
B ALLARI.
69. VIJ YA S/O. RAMADAS
R/O. GANDHINA GA R, B ALLARI.
70. MANOHAR S/O. SUBBANNA
R/O. OPP. DIST RICT HOSPIT AL,
ANANTHAPUR ROAD, B ALLARI.
71. RAMESH S/O. VENKATESH
R/O. PATEL NAGAR , B ALLARI.
8
72. NAGARAJ S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA
R/O. NANDIKARIB ASAPPA ST REET,
B ALLARI.
73. VENKAT ESH S/O. RAMANJINEYA
R/O. NANDIKARIB ASAPPA ST REET,
B ALLARI.
74. MOHAMMED ISSAC
S/O. B ASHA SAB
R/O. BOOCHER STREET, C.T.,
B ALLARI.
75. SARMAS VALI S/O. JAKRIYA
R/O. MAHAB OOB NAGAR, GUNTAKAL.
76. JAVEED AKHTAR S/O. B ASHA SAB
R/O. MILLER PET, B ALLARI.
77. ESAIAH S/O. DR IV ER MAREPPA
R/O. 2 N D CROSS, INDRANAGAR,
B ALLARI.
78. ANAND S/O. HONNU RAPPA
R/O. NEAR GANESH GUDI,
MILL ER PET, B ALLARI.
79. RAMESH S/O. B HEEMAPPA
R/O. ROOPANA GU DI ROAD,
B . GONEHAL V ILLA GE.
80. RAJESEKHAR S/O. RAMANJINI REDDY
R/O. 1 S T CROSS, KAPPA GAL ROAD,
B ALLARI.
81. MEHAB OOB B ASHA S/O. SEKHSHAVALI
R/O. BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR,
TALUR ROAD, B ALLARI.
82. RAMAJINEYU LU NARASIMHU LU
R/O. BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR,
TALUR ROAD, B ALLARI.
9
83. MAJIDH KHAN S/O. JAFAAR KHAN,
R/O. KANDRA SIDDAPPA COMPOU ND ,
B ALLARI.
84. B AB U S/O. CHANDARSHEKAR
R/O. S.N. PET, BALLAR I.
85. RAMDAS S/ O. ANJ INAPPA
R/O. 3 R D CROSS, INDRANAGAR,
B ALLARI.
86. RAMAKRISHNA THIPP ESWAMY
R/O. SHIVAL INGA NAGAR, B ALLARI.
87. RAJU S/O. HONNUR SAB
R/O. 2 N D CROSS, DEVI NAGAR,
B ALLARI.
88. VENKAT ESH VENKATASWAMY
R/O. INDRANAGAR ,
NEAR AMB EDKAR SCHOOL,
B ALLARI.
89. DIVAKAR S/O. MAREPPA
R/O. NEAR GANDHINAGAR,
B ALLARI.
90. B ASHA S/O. MOHAMMED B ASHA
R/O. YASEEN SAB STREET , C.B.,
B ALLARI.
91. GAGAL SEENAA @ VITTALA PURA
SCREENIVASA S/O. B HEEMANNA
R/O. 1 S T WARD, KU DU TINI.
92. K. NAGARAJ S/O. BASAPPA
R/O. KAMMA STREET, KU DU TINI.
93. J. MITILESH S/O. LATE V.N. JAYARAAM
R/O. CANTONMENT, B ALLARI.
94. S. JAGANNAT HA S/ O. S. B ASAPPA
R/O. NEAR K. GOPAL SETTY SCHOOL,
HOSAPETE.
10
95. REHAMAN S/O. KHASIM SAB
R/O. GANDHINA GA R, B ALLARI.
(DELETED BY COURT ORDER.)
96. MOULA S/O. KHASIM SAB
R/O. GANDHINA GA R, B ALLARI.
(DELETED BY COURT ORDER.)
97. HONNU R SAB @ HONNU R SWAMY
S/O. HONNUR SAB,
R/O. 1 S T CROSS, DEVI NAGAR,
B ALLARI.
....RESP ONDENT S.
(B Y SHRI T.HANUMAREDDY , ADVOCATE, FOR R.1 TO
R.6, 8 TO 15, R.17 TO 22, R.24 TO 58, R.60 TO 65,
R.67 TO 78, R.80 TO 90, R.92 TO 94 AND R.97;
R.66 AND R.91 - S ERVED U NREPRESENTED;
R.23 AND R.59 - A B ATED.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U NDER SECTION
378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAY ING T O SET ASIDE TH E
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF A CQUITTAL DAT ED
12. 1.20 16, PASSED B Y THE COURT OF III ADDL .
DIST RICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, B ALLARI, SITTIN G
AT HOSPET E, IN SESSIONS CASE NO.150/ 2007, AN D
TO CONVICT THE ACCU SED PERSONS, ETC.,.
THIS A PPEAL CO MING ON FOR F INAL HEAR ING
THIS DAY, SR I P.N.DESAI, J, DELIVERED TH E
FOLL OWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is p referred by the State being agg rieved by the judgment of acquittal d ated 12.1.2016, passed by III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, sitting at Hosp ete, in 11 Sessions Case No.150/2007 for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 447, 435, 436, 427, 504 and 506 read with section 149 of IPC. .
2. Brief case of the prosecution is as und er:
One M/s.MSPL Limited is a lessee under a mining lease for mining the iron ore in the land s bearing Sy.No.1, 4, 5 and 6 of Vyasanakere village, Hosp ete taluk of Ballari district. M/s.S.B.Minerals and M/s.V.Nag appa Mines were also having mining lease at Vyasanakere villag e and were adjacent to the mines owned by M/s.MSPL limited. It is further alleged that the said M/s.V.Nagappa encroached the mining area of MSPL Limited, d ue to which there were litig ations and cases b etween them.
3. It is further case of the p rosecution that on 13.5.2006 at about 12.00 noon nearly about 600-700 goondas and henchmen came to the said 12 MSPL in 80-90 vehicles, trespassed into the land of Vyasanakere iron ore mines of MSPL limited. They had with them lethal weapons, explosives and lathies, and the said group was lead by one Ramapp a-accused No.1, accused No.99 and accused No.100. It is alleg ed by the prosecution that the accused by forming an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting the employees who were working in the said mines, assaulted some of the workers with clubs and other weapons, criminally intimidated them, threatened to take away their lives and caused injuries to the said emp loyees. It is further alleged that the said unlawful assembly damag ed the vehicles, burnt several machines, escalators, dumpers, drilling machines and set fire to canteen building and reef office b elonging to MSPL limited thereby caused loss to the tune of `27,19,200/-.
4. It is further alleged that the said unlawful assemb ly of the accused caused injuries to CW.2 to CW.8 who were the employees of said 13 MSPL. They were shifted to Government hospital for treatment. The said incident was informed to the police and other authorities over p hone. Around 2.50 p.m. police and fire brig ad e officials came there. In this reg ard the Dep uty General Manag er of said MSPL Limited one Mr.P.N.Krishnamurthy lodg ed a complaint on the same d ay i.e., on 13.5.2006 at 7.30 p.m. before the PSI, Mariyammanahalli. Thereafter the Investig ating Officer conducted investig ation and filed the charg e sheet ag ainst the accused for the offences stated above.
5. The accused persons appeared before the trial Court and charg e was framed ag ainst them by the trial Judge for the offences punishab le und er sections 143, 148, 323, 324, 326, 427, 435, 436, 447, 506 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Cod e, for which accused plead ed not guilty and claimed to b e tried.
6. In order to prove the charg e, the prosecution in all examined 29 witnesses as PW.1 14 to PW.29 and got marked 53 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.53 and got identified 14 material objects as MO.1 to MO.14. Thereafter statement of accused as required under section 313 of Cr.P.C. was record ed. The accused denied the incriminating evid ence appearing ag ainst them. After hearing the arg uments, the trial Court acquitted the accused .
7. Aggrieved by the same, state has preferred this ap peal on the ground that judgment and order p assed by the trial Court is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record .
8. We have heard the arguments, p erused the judgment of trial Court and evid ence on record .
9. The learned Addl. SPP for the State arg ued that, the trial Court has not appreciated the entire evid ence on record in its prop er persp ective which has resulted in miscarriag e of justice. Learned Addl. SPP further submits that 15 PW.7 to PW.14, the eye witnesses fully supported the case of prosecution. These witnesses have specifically stated about the overtacts of the accused . Their evid ence has not been prop erly app reciated. Though p rosecution has p roved its case b eyond all reasonab le doubt, the trial Court acquitted the accused on flimsy grounds. Therefore the said judgment is p erverse, illegal. With these main arguments the learned Addl. SPP has prayed to set asid e the judgment of acquittal and to convict the accused for the aforesaid offences.
10. Out of 29 witnesses examined, PW.7, 8, 10 to 14 are the injured witnesses and PW.9, 15 and 2 to 6 are the eye witnesses. PW.20 is the doctor who examined the injured and issued certificate. PW.27 is the Dep uty Manag er of MSPL mines who has lodged the comp laint and set the criminal law in motion. The prosecution mainly relies on these witnesses.
11. PW27-P.N.Krishna Murthy was employee of Vyasanakere iron ore mines of MSPL limited. He 16 lodged the complaint with reg ard to the incident as per Ex.P.51. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that he received message that larg e number of persons were coming toward s the mines. But he has not stated the timing when he saw those persons coming towards said mines. PW.27 has given a general and vague evid ence stating that those p ersons were carrying stones, lethal weapons and started to beat the employees and threatened them. They also damag ed the vehicles and machines. He has stated that some workers came to his office for first aid and he took them to hosp ital. By the time he returned to mines, he found only smoke and fire coming from the damaged materials. In this reg ard he informed the police.
12. Ex.P.51 is the typed complaint. Nowhere PW.27 has stated that he witnessed the incident. But he has stated that he reliab ly learnt that the owners of Nagappa mines and their contractors and adjacent mining lessee, jointly eng ag ed the 17 professional goond as, who trespassed over their operative mining area. PW.27 has mentioned about the damag e caused to the vehicles. It is also mentioned in Ex.P.51 that PW.27 reliably learnt that majority of goondas were sp eaking in Telugu languag e and he also learnt that vehicles belonging to Ramu Travellers were arrang ed by one Ramapp a of Best School. So Ex.P.51, the written complaint clearly indicates that PW.27 was not at all p resent at the time of incident. The trial Court has rightly observed that he is only a hearsay witness. The cross-examination of this witness is in the form of questions and answers. But his cross-examination reveals that he has not seen the incident.
13. According to p rosecution, PW.2 Veeresh, PW.3 Sharanappa, PW.4 Dhananjay, PW.5 Prasad and PW.6 Bhaskar were the eye witnesses. But they have not supported the p rosecution case. The prosecution treated them hostile and cross-examined them at leng th. But during their 18 cross-examination nothing helpful to the prosecution was elicited .
14. PW.7 Ayyapp a, PW.8 Suresh, PW.12 Manjunath, PW.13 Nag araj, PW.14 Baramappa are the injured witnesses.
15. PW.7 Ayyappa has stated in his evidence that on the d ate of incident, mob of about 700 persons came to the MSPL mines, they were carrying deadly weapons such as machhu and clubs. Along with him PW.8 Suresh, PW.12 Manjunath and PW.13 Nag araj were also working . PW.7 has further stated that about 20 persons in the said mob came toward s them, ab used them in Telugu languag e, some of them kicked him, assaulted him with their hands and club . The other persons went towards machine, canteen and office and set fire to the machines. Then immed iately he came to mines office, from there he was taken to hosp ital. PW.7 has clearly stated that he cannot identify the p ersons who assaulted him and mad e galata at MSPL mines. The prosecution treated him 19 partly hostile and cross examined him. In the cross-examination the accused were shown to him by their names, and he admitted that he id entified them at the police station. But ag ain in further cross-examination he states that, only one person assaulted him with a club, b ut he cannot say how many assaulted him with their hands and kicked him. Ag ain he failed to id entify the accused in the cross-examination. He has not stated any particular overtact of any accused.
16. PW8-Suresh is another injured witness. Though in the examination-in-chief he has stated that a mob of ab out 700 p ersons came on the d ay of incid ent at about 12.00 noon when he was working at MSPL mines, but does not speak about particular overtact of any p articular accused. PW.8 has simply stated that the persons in the mob ab used him in Telugu languag e, without stating any such ab usive words. PW.8 has stated that he was assaulted with a club and a result, he sustained injury to his right eye. PW.8 escap ed 20 from there and went to the office. He has further stated about setting fire to the vehicles. But he has failed to id entify the persons who committed the said act. The prosecution treated him p artly hostile. During cross-examination by the prosecution, though he stated that he id entified the accused, but ag ain in the cross-examination by accused side, he stated that the p erson who assaulted him was not b efore the Court and accused No.19 Chandrashekhar was not the person who assaulted him with club . Even he could not say who was carrying petrol can, and which of the accused was holding clubs. PW.8 has stated that police did not show him M.O.1 to 14.
17. PW.9 Uller Durg app a, PW.10 Parashuram, PW.11 Markandeya have also stated in their evid ence that, about two years b ack in the month of 13 t h May, when they were working at MSPL mines, ab out 150 persons came there in a mob. They were throwing stones and b roke the glasses of vehicles. PW.9 has stated that somehow 21 he escap ed from there and came to the mines office. PW.9 has not at all stated any p articular overtact by any accused. Similarly PW.10 has also not stated any overtact by accused and not identified the accused.
18. PW.11 Markandeya has clearly stated that the accused present before the Court were not the persons who came toward s their vehicles. PW.11 did not identify any accused b efore police nor saw any damag e in the mines. The prosecution treated him hostile and cross examined at length. But nothing helpful to the p rosecution was elicited.
19. PW.12 Manjunath accord ing to prosecution is another injured witness who has sustained grievous injuries. PW.12 has stated in his evid ence that, at the time of incident about 700 persons were present. He was assaulted by them with hands and clubs. PW.12 further stated that, then he came to the office in another vehicle. The p rosecution treated him hostile and cross 22 examined him at length. But nothing helpful to the prosecution was elicited .
20. PW.13 Nag araj is a d river in MSPL mines comp any. He has stated that on 13.5.2006 ab out 700 persons came towards MSPL mines comp any by making galata. One Ramappa, Mithilesh and Jag annath were instig ating the mob to set fire to the MSPL mines company. PW.13 has further stated that at that time he was in the vehicle. About 20 persons came toward s him and damag ed the glasses, head lights and mirrors of the vehicles and assaulted him. But he has also not id entified the accused. In the cross-examination by the accused he ad mitted that in Ex.P.6 the photo album of the vehicles, the vehicle which he was driving and which according to him was damag ed is not seen. He has clearly stated that he cannot identify the persons who assaulted him. Even he could not identify the accused .
21. PW.14 Baramappa has stated that he was working as a operator in MSPL mines. He has 23 stated that on 13.5.2006 when he was working in the mines machine area, at about 12 p.m. about 150 persons came towards the mines by shouting . They were holding sticks, machhu and clubs. Only six persons came towards him and they were talking in Telugu languag e. He g ot down from the machine. The said persons d amaged the indicator and about 2-3 persons assaulted him and Neelapp a with a club. PW.14 has clearly stated that he could not id entify any of them, and those p ersons were not shown to him by police at any time.
22. PW.15 Shantaraj was a mechanic working in the said MSPL mines has not stated anything ag ainst the accused. He has simp ly stated on 13.5.2006 a mob of 200 persons came there in vehicles. They were holding stones and clubs. They damag ed the tipper vehicle and set fire to drilling machines, reef office and canteen building.
23. PW.16 Gang amma has not stated
anything ag ainst the accused.
24
24. PW17-Basavaraja. B.G, a Police
Constab le attached to the Hosapete Rural Police Station has stated that on 13.05.2006 when he was on Kallalli Check Post on duty, from Hosap ete sid e about 25 vehicles p assed towards Sandur sid e. In his cross-examination he has admitted that though there was an ord er to enter the vehicle numbers in the reg ister kep t for that purpose, but he did not enter the same. His evid ence will not help the p rosecution to show as to how many vehicles p assed in the said route towards MSPL mines.
25. PW19-K.V.Rama Murthy is a travel ag ent. He has d enied about lending 25 vehicles to the accused on hire basis.
26. PW20-Dr.Yerriyappa is a Medical Officer. He has stated that on 13.5.20006 he examined the injured witnesses who were brought to the hosp ital with the history of assault at MSPL mining. He found simple injuries, such as contusion and ab rasion on PW7, PW8, PW10, PW11, PW13 and 25 PW14. If at all the mob was carrying dead ly weapons like stones sticks and clubs and assaulted the emp loyees of MSPL mines and the injured the witnesses, they ought to have sustained severe injuries. But medical evidence is contrary to it. PW.20 doctor has stated that PW12-Manjunath has sustained fracture of left knee i.e., intra-articular fracture. The wound certificates of injured are at Exs.P.11 to 17. This medical evid ence is inconsistent and contrary to the oral evidence and thereby makes theory of assault as stated by the prosecution doubtful.
27. PW.22, PW.23 and PW.24 are the p anch witnesses who have stated about the seizure of the damaged vehicles and also photos of the scene of offence. All these witnesses have ad mitted that they were emp loyees of MSPL. Their evid ence discloses that there were some damages to the vehicles and machines. But none of them has spoken about the p articip ation of the accused in any incid ent involving them. PW25, another p anch 26 has not supported the seizure of the vehicle vid e panchanama-Ex.P.48.
28. PW24-Lakshman Naik is Motor Vehicle Insp ector who has given report as per Ex.P.20 reg arding d amage to the vehicles and its value.
29. The remaining witnesses, i.e., the Investig ating Officers have stated about the investig ation done by them. But the prosecution witnesses have not supported their evidence.
30. PW.29 Sharanappa Dy.S.P. has admitted that no identification parade was conducted nor that he collected the documents reg arding MSPL comp any or their area. He has also ad mitted that several politicians' names were involved but they were not mad e as accused . This creates doubt about the investigation mad e in this case.
31. On perusing the evid ence of prosecution witnesses, it is evid ent that there is no cogency and consistency in their evid ence about the charg e leveled against the accused . On the other hand , 27 their evid ence is full of contradictions and inconsistencies about the material particulars. None of the injured witnesses has id entified the accused . They have not stated about overtact of any particular accused. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is a general and vag ue one. It is only a omnibus statement reg arding the assault, d amag e to the vehicles, machines and setting fire to the office. On such omnibus statements, it cannot be said that the p rosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonab le doubts.
32. It is evid ent from the prosecution evid ence that there is some civil disp ute and ill-will between the MSPL company and Nag app a comp any about the area and the bound aries of mining of resp ective iron ore mines. There is a business rivalry between them. This ill-will or enmity is like a double edged weapon, it cuts either way. It is evident from the prosecution evid ence that there might have taken p lace some incident, a mob mig ht have d amaged the prop erty 28 of MSPL mines, but the p rosecution has failed to prove any act involving the accused before the Court. The witnesses have failed to identify the accused before the Court. There is a lot of difference b etween 'may be true' and 'must b e true'. The p rosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. If from the evid ence of prosecution witnesses two views are possible, then the view favourab le to the accused will have to b e accepted b y the Court. On re-appreciation of evid ence in this case, we find that the possib ility of falsely implicating the accused also cannot be ruled out.
33. This b eing an appeal ag ainst acquittal, we do not find any error or infirmity in the judgment rendered by the trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge has d iscussed the evid ence of each witnesses and come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to p rove the alleged offence beyond all reasonable doub t and given benefit of doubt to the accused.
29
34. We are not inclined to interfere with the said finding for the reason stated above. The app eal b eing devoid of merits is liab le to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is d ismissed confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.
Registry to send back the trial Court records forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Mrk/Bvv