Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka, vs Best School on 5 January, 2021
Author: Sreenivas Harish P.N.Desai
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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. 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
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
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 ,
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
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.
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
