Karnataka High Court
Union Of India vs Muniswamy on 3 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44279
CRL.A No. 32 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2014 (A)
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
BY INSPECTOR/RPF
SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
BANGALORE CANTONMENT,
BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP.)
AND:
1. MUNISWAMY
S/O MUNIGOUNDER
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
NARSIPURA LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BANGALORE-560097.
2. MUNIMARA @ NARAYANA
S/O KARICHIKKANNA
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
R/O PUTTANAHALLI
KARNATAKA
BEHIND PRABHU BAR
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560067
3. NAGARAJ
S/O BANGIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/O PUTTANAHALLI
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560067
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.H. NARAYANA, ADV. FOR R3-ABSENT,
R1- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED,
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED: 13.01.2017 R2 IS ABATED.)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44279
CRL.A No. 32 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C BY THE
STATE P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
03.05.2013 PASSED BY THE P.O., SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC
OFFENCES, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.431/2002 -ACQUITTING
THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(a) OF
THE RP (UP) ACT, 1966. THE SPP/STATE PRAYS THAT THE
ABOVE ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE.I.A.NO.1/14 FOR CD IN
FILING. I.A.NO.1/14 FILED BY THE ADV., FOR THE APPELLANT
PRAYING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 156 DAYS IN FILING
THE ABOVE APPEAL FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN.
POST CRL.A. BEFORE COURT FOR ORDERS ON I.A.NO.1/14
FOR CD IN FILING. SN
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The Union of India has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore in C.C.No.431/2002 dated 03.05.2013.
2. The parties are the same rank and have advanced the same arguments.
3. The Brief facts of the prosecution case is that, on 18.02.2002, as per the confessional statement of accused No.2, Munimara alias Narayanan, as lead by him, when a search was conducted at the Scrap Material and Waste Paper Shop, -3- NC: 2025:KHC:44279 CRL.A No. 32 of 2014 HC-KAR No.313, Manjunatha paper, Narasapura Layout, Vidyaranyapura Main Road, Bangalore. During the search, accused No.1- Muniswamy, was found in possession of 3 numbers of Computers, 4 numbers of HCL Keyboards, 2 numbers of Printers and 1 number of UPS-2KVA belonging to the Railways. Accused No.1 voluntarily produced the sale proceeds of Rs.10,000/-, being the amount received towards the sale of one printer belonging to the Railways, which had been stolen by Accused Nos.2 and 3 from the Railways i.e., P.R.S. Centre, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. The said articles is suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained from the Railways and thereby, the accused have committed the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.
4. The accused appeared before the Court and was enlarged on bail. The charge framed against the accused for the alleged commission of offences, which was read over and explained to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To support the case of the complainant, 14 witnesses were examined as PW-1 to PW-14 and 35 documents -4- NC: 2025:KHC:44279 CRL.A No. 32 of 2014 HC-KAR were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.35. 4 material objects were also marked as MOs-1 to Mos-4. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused totally denied the evidence of the prosecution witnesses but they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
6. After hearing the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused for the alleged commission of offence under Section 3(a) of RP(UP) Act, 1966. Being ggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.
7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, I have perused the materials placed before me. The trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the RP (UP) Act, 1966. Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.
8. Sri R. Rangaswamy, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution in its right perspective. The trial Court has failed to draw proper inference from the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:44279 CRL.A No. 32 of 2014 HC-KAR Further, he would submit that the trial Court has failed to see that there are sufficient material available on record to prove the nexus between the accused and the commission of offence. The prosecution witnesses have supported the case and the stolen properties have been duly identified and the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused. However, the trial Court has acquitted the accused. On all these grounds, the learned High Court Government Pleader seeks to allow the appeal.
9. As per Order dated 13th January, 2017, appeal abated against accused No.2/respondent No.2 herein, since he is no more. Sri T.H. Narayana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 absent and unrepresented. Hence, arguments on his behalf is taken as nil.
10. Having heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant-State, the following points would arise for consideration:
1) Whether the appellant-State has made out a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court?
2) What order?-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:44279 CRL.A No. 32 of 2014 HC-KAR
11. Before adverting to the actual facts of the case and appreciation of evidence, 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.
12. In the case of MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI & OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2018 SCC 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, re-appreciate 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", -7- NC: 2025:KHC:44279 CRL.A No. 32 of 2014 HC-KAR "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 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."
13. 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:
"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 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:44279 CRL.A No. 32 of 2014 HC-KAR 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 well-established 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. ..."
14. 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 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--9-
NC: 2025:KHC:44279 CRL.A No. 32 of 2014 HC-KAR 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 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...."
15. 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
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44279 CRL.A No. 32 of 2014 HC-KAR 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."
16. 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 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, re-appreciate 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."
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44279 CRL.A No. 32 of 2014 HC-KAR
17. I have examined the material placed before this Court. Only the true copies of charge-sheet, depositions and judgment are produced.
18. PW1-S. Kotaiah, IPF/CIB/H.Q./Hubli and PW3-Mohan Ram Hegde, Police Constable, working in the Vigilence Cell, Railway Wheel Factory, Yelahanka. PW4-M.T. Umesh, Inspector, Railway Protection Force, PW6-Smt. T. Pushpa, Reservation Clerk working in Railway Reservation Office, Yelahanka, PW7-M.C. Muniyappa working in reservation counter at Yelahanka, PW8-Mark Anthony Samuel, Reservation Clerk working in Reservation Office of Railways; PW9-Kareen Mark, Reservation Supervisor working in RPF, PW10-Srishar working as Enquiry Reservation Supervisor, PW13-Shiakumar Senior Section Officer, PW14-Gopal, Gangman, have supported the case of the prosecution. The independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Considering the evidence of the prosecution, the trial Court, in its judgment at paragraphs 53 to 56, has observed as under:
"53. Here in this case, the nature of the property belongs to railways and its identity and it is missing from concerned department is not established with
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44279 CRL.A No. 32 of 2014 HC-KAR documentary evidence, apart from, oral inconsistent testimony of P.W.1 to 12 & 13. The absence of independent corroboration is also casts doubt to place reliance on official testimony alone under the facts and circumstances of the case.
54. The complainant/RPP has relied the decisions reported in 1979 Cr.L.J., 1193 (SC), 1973 Cr.L.J., Page No.1098 (Allahabad), 2001 Cr.L.J., Page No.58 (Bombay), 2001 Cr.L.J., Page No.3828 (Caluctta HC), 1975 Cr.L.J., Page No.952 (AP), 1974 Cr.L.J., page No.1240 (Allahabad HC) Evidence of Official witnesses are to be believed, 2003(4) Crime page 217(SC), Railway servant acting as panch, 1976 Crl.L.J., Page No.1859 (Bombay HC), Minor Discrepancies to be over looked, 1978 Crl.J. page 1612 (SC) PARA -B. The principles laid down in the above said decisions are also observed while assigning the reasons. The neighbouring witnesses who corroborated the proceedings are not examined to prove the observation mahazar as per Sec.100(4) of the Cr.P.C. The property belonging to the railways is not shown through records. Even, the ancillary documents, in order to prove the seized properties are the railway properties is relevant.
55. The learned counsel for the accused relied upon the decisions reported in 1) 1991 Cri.L.J., 3065 (Allahabad High Court), 2) AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1868, 3) 2002 Crl.L.J., 1090 (Patna High Court), 4) 1998 Crl.L.J., (Allahabad High Court), 5) 2006 Crl.L.J., 660 (Orissa High Court), 6) 1993 Crl.L.J., 2609
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44279 CRL.A No. 32 of 2014 HC-KAR (Supreme Court), and 7) Judgement copy of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, in Crl.A. No.679/2011, 8) Xerox Copy of Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, at Bangalore, in Crl.A.No.641/1995, dated:12-7-1999, 1982 CRI.L.J 2253, (Gauhati High Court) 1994(3) Crimes, (Calcutta High Court) & 1983 Crimes 397 (Madhya Pradesh High Court). The principles laid down in the above said decisions are aptly applicable to the case on hand and the facts and circumstances are enunciated therein is to be adopted.
56. Therefore, the principles laid down in the above said decisions are appreciable and confession statement of the accused even though reliable, it should be corroborated by the official and independent testimony and it is authenticated. But, here in this case, there is inconsistent official testimony, which defeat reliability of the statement. Hence, the benefit of doubt is conferred in favour of the accused No.1 to 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has failed to establish the properties are the railway properties and it was found in unlawful possession of the accused and it has been seized out of the possession of the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the negative."
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44279 CRL.A No. 32 of 2014 HC-KAR
19. The trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions, I do not find any error/illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the negative.
20. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE SMC/lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62