Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Somegowda on 23 February, 2022

Bench: K.Somashekar, P.N.Desai

                                 1
                                                       R
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                          PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR

                            AND

             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1589/2015

BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MALAVALLI RURAL
POLICE STATION-571 430.
                                               ... APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA., HCGP)

AND:

1.     SOMEGOWDA,
       S/O DODDALINGEGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
       R/O AMRUTHESHWARANAHALLI VILLAGE,
       MALAVALLI TALUK-571 430.

2.     MANJUNATHA @ KARIYA,
       S/O KEMPEGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
       R/O AMRUTHESHWARANAHALLI VILLAGE,
       MALAVALLI TALUK-571 430
                                           ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. H.B CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R1 AND R2)
                                 2



      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION U/S.378(1)
AND (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO A)GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 24.08.2015 PASSED BY THE
II ADDL. DIST. S.J., MANDYA IN S.C.NO.88/2008, ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED-RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER    SECTIONS      302  AND    201   R/W    34   OF   IPC.
b)SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
24.08.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. S.J., MANDYA IN
S.C.NO.88/2008 ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS NO.1
AND 2 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND
201 R/W 34 OF IPC. c)CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENTS
NO.1 AND 2 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302
AND 201 R/W 34 OF IPC IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

    THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER
ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, P.N.DESAI. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

This appeal arises out of judgment of acquittal dated

24th August 2015 passed by II Additional District and Sessions

judge, Mandya, in S.C.No.88/2008 wherein accused Nos.1 and 2

were acquitted of the offences under sections 302 and 201 r/w

34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').

2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that

deceased Chikkanna was having illicit relationship with CW.29

Basamma. Accused No.1 being the relative of said Basamma was

very much angry of the said relationship and unable to tolerate

such illicit relationship, accused Nos.1 and 2 decided to put an

end to the life of said Chikkanna. It is further case of the

prosecution that on 08.11.2007 at about 8.00 p.m. to 9.0 p.m.,

Chikkanna along with his father went to their new house to put

mulberry leaves to silk worms. Thereafterwards, the father of

Chikkanna returned back to their house and Chikkanna was

alone in the new house. At about 9.00 p.m., in

Amrutheshwaranahalli near Tippehalli in the property bearing

Survey No.122/1B, the accused persons with an intention to

commit the murder of Chikkanna assaulted him with a sickle on

his head, neck, face, both upper arms and on chest and caused

fatal injuries and thereby Chikkanna succumbed to the injuries.

Thereafterwards, the accused persons dumped the dead body of

Chikkanna in Thippehalla and covered it with mulberry sticks

with an intention to cause disappearance of evidence. However,

PW-1 -Marimadegowda who is the father of deceased Chikkanna

waited for his son, but as his son did not return, next day

morning, he started searching for his son, then his brother-in-

law viz., Shantharaju PW-5 informed him that he found the key

of their new house on the road. Then he went along with said

Shantharaju near his new house and he found the key of his

house and by the side of the place where key was found, under a

bush which was covered with mulberry, he also found the dead

body of his son Chikkanna and he also found a sickle, two blood

stained stones, slipper and found the neck of deceased

Chikkanna was cut, his fingers were also cut and he had

sustained injuries to various parts of his body. In this regard, he

lodged a complaint to Malavalli Rural Police station who received

the complaint as per Ex-P1 and submitted it to the court.

3. Thereafterwards, PW-30- K.V. Krishnappa, Sub

Inspector of Police, Malavalli Rural Police Station handed over

further investigation to PW-31 S.E. Gangadharaswamy, Circle

Inspector, Mallavalli Rural Police Station and he visited the spot

of offence. Then he arrested both the accused and brought them

to the office of CPI and gave report to PW-31 as per Ex-P24 on

25.11.2007. PW-31 S.E.Gangadharaswamy, after conducting

further investigation, secured the panchas and conducted

inquest panchanama as per Ex-P2 and also recorded statements

of the witnesses. At the time of conducting spot mahazar, he

also seized a pair of slippers, two blood stained stones, blood

stained mud, unstained mud and pieces of shirt pocket of

deceased Chikkanna as per M.O.1. Then he recorded statement

of other witnesses and sent the dead body of Chikkanna to post

mortem. Dr.Sanjay-PW-27 conducted post mortem of deceased

Chikkanna as per Ex-P20 and gave report as per Ex-P21.

Thereafterwards, I.O. also seized the clothes on the dead body

of Chikkanna as per panchanama Ex-P26. Then, after arresting

the accused, the accused gave voluntary statement and accused

No.1 disclosed that Chikkanna had illicit relationship with his

Aunt Basamma and he tried to advice him to stop said illicit

relationship, but as Chikkanna did not heed to his advice, he

assaulted Chikkanna with a sickle and Chikkanna succumbed to

the injuries. Accused No.2 also stated in his voluntary statement

about the commission of the said offence. Then accused No.1 led

the IO to his house and brought the blood-stained shirt - M.O.10

and the same was seized under mahazar Ex-P3.

Thereafterwards, accused No.2 also led panchas viz., PW-14-

Nageeregowda, PW-18- Doddaiah and PW-6 Subbegowda and

brought one lungi and a shirt, which were also seized under

panchanama Ex-P7. Thereafterwards, both accused Nos.1 and 2

led panchas and investigating officer-PW-31 to the land of one

Puttaraju. Accused No.1 produced one lungi and a sickle. He

seized them under panchanama Ex-P4, which are marked as

M.Os.7 and 8. Thereafterwards, he sent the seized articles for

FSL & RFSL, Mysore for chemical examination. He also secured

RTC of the said land as per Ex-P30. He also secured sketch map

from the Public Welfare Department regarding the place of

offence as per Ex-P18 and after completing the investigation, he

filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences stated

above.

4. Thereafterwards, learned JMFC after complying with the

provisions of sections 207, 208 and 209 Cr.P.C. committed the

said case to the court of sessions for trial. The learned sessions

judge after hearing the accused and learned Public Prosecutor

framed the charges against the accused. The prosecution in all

examined 31 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-31 and got marked 35

documents as Exs-P1 to P35 and got identified fourteen material

objects as M.O.1 to M.O.14. Then, the statements of the accused

as required under section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C., was recorded. The

accused denied the circumstances appeared against them in the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused have not

chosen to adduce any defence evidence. After hearing the

prosecution and the accused, the learned sessions judge passed

the impugned judgement of acquittal which is assailed by the

State in this appeal.

5. We have heard Smt. K.P. Yashoda, learned HCGP for

appellant-State and Sri. H.B. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.1 and 2.

6. Learned HCGP for appellant-State argued that the

impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the

Sessions court is contrary to law and evidence on record. It is

further argued that the learned sessions judge has not

appreciated the evidence and not considered the relevant

evidence relied on by the prosecution, though the evidence of

PW-12 clearly discloses that the shirt of the accused were blood

stained and next day, PW-12 came to know about the murder of

deceased Chikkanna. Further, PW-18 has also stated about the

illicit relationship between deceased Chikkanna and Basamma

before whom accused have made extra-judicial confession. The

court has not properly appreciated the evidence of these two

witnesses i.e., PW-12 and PW-18 in proper perspective. Further,

there is corroboration by eye witness PW-19 in respect of blood

on the clothes of the accused. Learned HCGP further argued that

the Doctor has clearly opined that the injury on the dead body of

Chikkanna could be caused by using a weapon which is seized in

this case. The death is clearly homicidal one. The panch witness

PW-7 for seizure of sickle, stone and lungi has not supported

said panchanama Exs-P4 to P6. Further, the FSL report also

supports the case of the prosecution wherein the blood-stained

clothes of the accused are stained with human blood 'O' group.

Inspite of prosecution placing reliance of these materials, the

learned sessions judge without appreciating the said evidence in

proper perspective has given benefit of doubt which has resulted

in miscarriage of justice. With these main arguments, learned

HCGP prayed to set aside the judgment of acquittal and convict

the accused and impose sentence in accordance with law.

7. Against this, learned counsel for the

respondents/accused Sri. H.B. Chandrashekar argued that the

entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial

evidence. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The

prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond

all reasonable doubt. Even PW-1 in his complaint has not made

any allegation against these accused. The other witness PW-2

panch witness for inquest panchanama has also turned hostile.

C. Rajanna- PW-3, the other witness, has also turned hostile.

Then other witnesses are only formal witnesses. The panch

witness PW-6 has not supported the prosecution. The other

panch witnesses PW-10- A.C. Chikkaraju, PW-11 Sathisha for

seizure mahazar Ex-P4 have turned hostile. PW-12 is a hearsay

witness. PW-13 has also not supported the prosecution.

8. Similarly, the panchas for recovery of M.O.8 to M.O.10

have not supported the prosecution. Similarly, PW-15-

Doddeeregowda, PW-16 Nagesha and almost all witnesses have

turned hostile in this case. Learned counsel further argued that

PW-29 Basamma herself has not supported the prosecution and

she has denied that she had illicit relationship with deceased

Chikkanna. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to

prove the alleged motive for the commission of said offences.

Apart from that, absolutely, there is no evidence to connect to

the guilt of the accused with the death of said Chikkanna.

Learned counsel further argued that the blood stained clothes

are not proved to be the blood group of either accused or

deceased Chikkanna. Simply stating that clothes were stained

with human blood does not mean that they are clothes belonging

to the accused or it is the blood of deceased Chikkanna. Learned

counsel also argued that the recovery of sickle is also not proved

in view of contradictory evidence of IO from the place where it is

seized. Because, according to PW-1, sickle M.O.7 was in the

place of offence, but IO stated that it was recovered at the

instance of the accused. So when already sickle is available,

question of again recovering said sickle at the instance of the

accused does not arise. Learned counsel further argued that

even the last seen theory is not proved by the prosecution

because there is no person who has seen these accused with

deceased Chikkanna at any point of time. It is stated that when

PW-1 -father of deceased Chikkanna was returning home, he

found these accused were passing by, so that will not amount to

last seen theory. Further, the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses in this regard is not cogent and convincing. There is

no corroboration with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

On the other hand, their evidence is full of contradictions and

inconsistencies. Learned counsel further argued that this court

being first appellate court sitting in an appeal against judgement

of acquittal, will not interfere with the judgement of acquittal

unless the judgment of the trial court is illegal, capricious and

not based on sound principles regarding appreciation of

evidence. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied on

the principles stated in the case of SHARAD BIRDHI CHAND

SARDA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA1, wherein, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has elaborated principles regarding

circumstantial evidence and given benefit of doubt to the

accused.

9. Learned counsel for respondents/accused also relied on

another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

(1984) 4 SCC 116

STATE OF ODISHA v. BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA2. He also

relied on decision in the case of SHIVAJI CHINTAPPA PATIL

v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA3, regarding the provisions of

section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel further

relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

ANWAR ALI AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HIMACHAL

PRADESH4, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with

the provisions of sections of Indian Penal Code and also

appreciation of evidence in circumstantial evidence cases.

Learned counsel also relied on another decision in the case of

BABU v. STATE OF KERALA5, regarding the innocence of the

accused and how the appellate court has to deal with the first

appeal. Relying on these principles, learned counsel argued that

the learned sessions judge has rightly appreciated the evidence

and as prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused,

learned sessions judge by giving benefit of doubt has rightly

acquitted the accused and no interference is called for by this

AIR 2021 (SC) 1375

AIR 2021 (SC) 1249

AIR 2020 (SC) 4519

AIR 2011 (SC) (CRL) 809

Court in the judgment of acquittal. With these main arguments,

learned counsel argued to dismiss the appeal.

10. We have perused the judgment passed by the learned

sessions judge. The learned sessions judge has raised two points

for consideration and has referred to the evidence of each

witnesses one by one. The learned sessions judge has pointed

out material contradictions and inconsistencies in their evidence.

He has referred to the evidence of PW-1 and stated that even in

Ex-P1 written complaint, there is no mention of any suspicion

against accused causing death of deceased Chikkanna. No

motive is alleged. The learned sessions judge has considered the

evidence of wife of deceased PW-4 Bhanu and stated that her

evidence has nothing to do with implicating the accused. He has

also referred to the evidence of PW-5 Shantharaju who informed

PW-1 about the key of new house where deceased Chikkanna

was found dead. But the said witness has not fully supported the

prosecution. He has not stated anything about the accused. The

learned sessions judge has referred to the other witnesses such

as panch witnesses and recovery of articles at the instance of

accused.

11. The learned sessions judge has referred to the

evidence of PW.18 - Doddeeregowda who has deposed that

accused No.1 has made confession i.e., extra judicial confession

before him. PW.18 has stated that accused No.1 was very much

present on the date of incident and they went to the place where

dead body of deceased - Chikkanna was found. Learned Sessions

judge further referred to the evidence of PW.18, wherein he has

clearly stated that no articles were recovered in his presence.

The learned sessions judge has referred to the evidence of

investigating officer, other witnesses and also relied upon

various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein

principles regarding appreciation of evidence in the cases

involving circumstantial evidence was considered. Learned

sessions judge also relied on the decision regarding what is the

motive to commit murder of deceased is to be ascertained and

what is the nature of proof required in such cases for arrival of a

conclusion and in this regard, learned sessions judge has relied

upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

BABU referred supra and also decision in the case of

DHANAPAL v. STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADRAS6

and also decision in the case of TOMASO BRUNO AND

ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P.7 and also judgment of this court in

the case of A.R.CHANDRA (EDAPATHYA RAMACHANDRA)

AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER)8

wherein it is clearly held that when there is no direct evidence in

respect of commission of crime, the prosecution has relied on

circumstantial evidence and prosecution story of illicit

relationship could not be proved and prosecution has failed to

prove any one of circumstances beyond all reasonable doubt.

The learned sessions judge has also relied on the decision of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAJENDRAN

LANGESWARAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER9

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately stated that

onus lies on prosecution to prove that the chain of events is

complete and not to leave any doubt in the mind of the Court.

2009 SAR (Criminal) 989

2015 SAR (Criminal) 454

2015 Cr. R. 85 (Kant.)

2013 SAR (Criminal) 913

The learned sessions judge has also relied on the decision of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RADHEY SHAYM v.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN10 wherein it is held that if two views

are possible, then the view favourable to the accused is to be

accepted and he is entitled for acquittal. The learned sessions

judge has also discussed on the inquest report and held that

simply because the blood stains found on the clothes of accused

persons is of 'O' group blood, in the absence of any proof in this

regard, same cannot be believed at all and relied on the decision

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JITEN BESRA v.

STATE OF WEST BENGAL11 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that when there is no evidence to show that the blood

stains found on the clothes were either of accused or deceased,

then it cannot be stated that the accused have committed the

murder of deceased and prosecution has not chosen to place any

evidence in this regard. Learned sessions judge also relied upon

the other decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding

appreciation of evidence in such cases and came to the

conclusion that as the sickle was not blood stained and as there

(2014) 5 SCC 389

AIR 2010 SC 1294

is no evidence to show that blood stains found on clothes of the

accused persons are stains of blood of deceased, learned

Sessions judge held that the evidence of prosecution creates

doubt in the mind of court regarding participation of accused in

the alleged incident of committing the murder of deceased

Chikkanna. There is no cogent and convincing evidence produced

by the prosecution in this regard and the prosecution has failed

to discharge the burden cast upon it and as the evidence of

prosecution creates doubt in the mind of court, the learned

sessions judge has given benefit of doubt to the accused and

acquitted them.

12. This court being the first appellate court, we have

perused the evidence and re-appreciated the evidence

meticulously.

13. PW.1 - Marimadegowda father of deceased Chikkanna

set the criminal law into motion by lodging the complaint. In his

evidence before court, he has stated that about four years back

himself and his son -Chikkanna went to their farm house to put

mulberry leaves to silk worms. Then after some time, he alone

returned to the house and PW-1 saw accused on the way. He has

further stated that on the said night, his son did not return to

the house. Next day he went in search of his son. One

Shantharaju-PW.5 met him and gave him keys which he found

on the road, thereafter PW.5 has shown the place where he got

the keys. PW-1 went there and found body of his son Chikkanna

was covered with mulberry sticks and he has also found a sickle,

blood stained stones and slippers. In this regard, he lodged a

complaint before the police as per Ex.P1. Nowhere in his

evidence, he has expressed any doubt or made any allegations

against the accused. On perusing the written complaint - Ex.P1,

it is seen that PW.1 neither expressed any suspicion nor stated

about any illicit relationship between deceased-Chikkanna and

PW.29 - Basamma. Even his evidence before the court does not

disclose any allegation or suspicion against the accused. PW.1

simply stated in his cross-examination that he has seen accused

No.1 around 07:30 p.m., while accused No.1 was proceeding

near the shed of Doddegowda, but he has not spoken with him.

PW.1 also stated that the accused are known to him and one of

the accused is his relative. He has further stated that usually his

son will return to home at around 10:00 p.m., everyday, but on

the date of incident, as he slept early, he does not know as to

whether his son-Chikkanna returned to the house or not. This

evidence of PW-1 will not help the prosecution to implicate the

accused in any manner. Ofcourse, PW.1 denied that his son-

Chikkanna was involved in chit games and he has taken money

from many persons and in this regard, there are many persons

inimical towards deceased-Chikkanna. Even in the cross-

examination, PW.1 stated that when the police came to the place

of incident, the body of the deceased - Chikkanna was in the

place of offence only and a sickle was also lying there. Neither

the sickle nor slipper which were found at the spot were blood

stained, he does not know what the police did with the said

sickle. PW.1 has not stated as to who has committed the

murder of his son/deceased-Chikkanna. Therefore, his evidence

will not help the prosecution in any way.

14. PW.2 Puttaraju who is the owner of the land where

the dead body of the deceased - Chikkanna was found. PW.2

stated in his evidence that the police have seized sickle and

stones and taken out the body of the deceased which was found

under the mulberry sticks in his land and he has signed the said

panchanama as per Ex.P2. But he was treated partially hostile by

the prosecution. In the cross-examination, he admitted that

police though found the sickle, they did not seize the said sickle.

He does not know what happened to the said sickle.

15. PW.3 - Rajanna is the resident of Amrutheshwarana

Village. He has stated about police visiting the place of offence.

PW.3 was also treated as hostile by prosecution, but he has not

supported the prosecution about the seizure of any materials

from the place of offence.

16. PW.4 - Bhanu is the wife of deceased-Chikkanna and

she has also not expressed any doubt against accused or any

suspicion against the accused. She has simply stated that her

husband died about three years back and somebody has

murdered him. She has not stated anything about any illicit

relationship of deceased Chikkanna with PW.29-Basamma.

17. PW.5 - Shantaraju has stated in his evidence that

himself and PW.7 - Nagaraju were proceeding to his land at

about 07:00 a.m., They found key, slippers and blood stained

stone on the road, then on suspicion, they searched that place

and found that a body was covered with mulberry sticks. Then

they removed the mulberry sticks and found the dead body of

deceased - Chikkanna. Accordingly, PW-5 informed the

complainant-PW-1 the father of deceased Chikkanna. Therefore,

his evidence will not help the prosecution to implicate the

accused in any manner.

18. PW.6 - Subbegowda is a witness for seizure of

clothes at the instance of accused No.1 in his house. But he has

not supported the prosecution. The prosecution has treated him

as hostile and nothing worthwhile evidence is elicited from his

cross-examination.

19. PW.7 - E. Raju is an official witness working at

Government Department, wherein he has stated that both

accused were in custody of the police and accused have shown

them the place of offence and also they produced the said sickle

which was kept under a bush. Police have seized it. His evidence

is contradictory and inconsistent with the evidence of other

witnesses, including PW.1 who has stated that the sickle was

lying at the spot itself, so the question of discovering or

recovering an article which was already known to everybody has

no evidentiary value. Therefore, the evidence of this witness will

not help the prosecution to prove any such recovery at the

instance of accused.

20. PW.8 - Nagaraju is also another witness for seizure

of a sickle, stones and a lungi. He has also stated that the

accused took PW.8 and other witnesses to the land of one PW.2-

Puttaraju and produced said sickle, stones and lungi from a

bush. He has admitted that PW.7 is his cousin brother and PW.5

- Shantaraju is also his another brother. But he has denied that

he is related to deceased - Chikkanna. But his evidence is

inconsistent with the evidence of other witnesses. He has not

stated the exact place from where these articles were recovered.

In view of evidence of other witnesses who have stated that

those articles were already lying in the open space, his evidence

will not help the prosecution.

21. PW.9 Chandru is also witness for seizure of clothes

at the instance of accused No.2. He has stated in his evidence

that the police along with himself went to the house of accused

No.2. There, accused No.2 produced one lungi and a shirt to the

police from his house. So he has also not stated exactly from

which place in the house, these clothes were seized or recovered

at the instance of accused No.2. Simply stating that accused

No.2 brought clothes from his house and gave it to police will not

amount to either discovery or recovery of the said incriminating

articles. In the cross-examination, he has stated that PW.1 is

his relative and he does not know what is written in Ex.P7-

seizure mahazar. His evidence will not help the prosecution.

22. PW.10 - A.C.Chikkaraju is also seizure mahazar

witness and he has also stated that when he was proceeding

near his house, lot of people have gathered there. He went to

that place and police took his signature on Ex.P7. Neither the

police have called him while drawing the mahazar nor he was

taken to the house of any of the accused. He has not seen the

accused producing any articles from their house. The prosecution

has treated him as hostile witness and in the cross-examination

nothing helpful to the prosecution is elicited from this witness.

23. PW.11 - Sathisha is another witness to Ex.P7 seizure

panchanama. He has also stated that the police have not taken

him anywhere and that any articles were seized in his presence

from the house of the accused. Therefore, the evidence of this

witness about panchanama - Ex.P7 is doubtful.

24. PW.12 Chikkamari according to the prosecution has

seen the accused on the date of incident at about 09:00 p.m. on

road. He has stated that the accused were going towards

Marigudi and he saw the blood stains on the right shoulders of

their shirt. He has not talked with them. He also stated that it

was night at about 09:00. Next day, he came to know that

Chikkanna was murdered. The prosecution has treated him as

hostile witness and he was cross-examined at length. But he has

denied the suggestion that accused came to his house and

confessed before him at 11:00 p.m. that they have committed

the murder of deceased. He has clearly stated that he has not

given statement before police as per Ex.P8. In the cross-

examination, he has stated that he has seen accused No.1 at

around 09:00 p.m. he has informed the same to PW.1. But his

evidence cannot be believed. Because it was night 09:00 p.m.,

there was darkness and one could not identify or see any blood

stains on the cloth of the person who was just passing on the

road without talking to him or without standing near to him.

PW-12 has not stated about the distance from where he saw the

accused persons. Therefore, his evidence will not help the

prosecution in any way to connect the accused in this case.

25. PW.13 Shivaling is working in a hotel. He has stated

that he does not know for what reason, Chikkanna was

murdered and who has murdered him. Even he has not seen the

dead body and he was not in talking terms with the accused. The

prosecution has treated him as hostile witness and even in the

cross-examination, he has stated that he has not given

statement before the police as per Ex.P9.

26. PW.14 Nageeregowda is a witness for Ex.P3 - spot

panchanama. He has also not supported the prosecution about

the seizure of clothes at the instance of accused No.1 from his

house and drawing of inquest mahazar as per Ex.P2. Nothing

worthwhile evidence is elicited from this witness after his cross-

examination by the prosecution.

27. PW.15 Doddeeregowda who according to the

prosecution has seen the accused who was going towards

Chandapur road from Channaveerakatte on the night of the

incident. But he has also not supported the prosecution with

regard to witnessing the accused on the date of incident during

night time. He has clearly stated that he has not given statement

before police as per Ex.P10.

28. PW.16 - Nagesh has also stated that he has not seen

the accused on the date of the incident during night. He has also

stated that he has not given any statement before police as per

Ex.P11.

29. PW.17 Chikkiregowda according to the prosecution

is having a petty shop. According to the prosecution, accused

came to his shop and asked for Brandy. He has not supported

the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination, he has

clearly stated that he has not given any statement before police

as per Ex.P12.

30. PW.18 Doddeeregowda S/o. Chikkeregowda is a

hearsay witness. But his evidence does not show as to when

accused No.1 made extra judicial confession before him. On the

other hand, he has stated that he has heard about the murder of

said Chikkanna and went to the place of offence. He also found

accused No.1 was also present there. But accused No.1 has not

informed him anything. He has stated about the seizure of a

sickle at the instance of accused No.1, but he has not supported

the prosecution about the seizure of M.O.8 -Lungi. The

prosecution treated him as hostile witness and he was cross-

examined at length. In the cross-examination by accused, he

has stated that accused No.1 was very much present at the

place of offence around 08:00 a.m. wherein the dead body of

Chikkanna was lying. Even accused No.2 was also present and

accused No.2 was cleaning the dead body with water. Both

accused Nos.1 and 2 were present where the dead body of

Chikkanna was lying. They were present there till the police took

dead body to the hospital. So this evidence of PW.18 creates

doubt about the arrest of the accused and seizure of articles

from the accused and accused making any extra judicial

confession before this witness. If at all the accused have

committed any such offence, they would not have been present

at the place of offence, when the police also came there. But the

police states that accused were not present at the place of

offence. Subsequently, they traced the accused and arrested

them. PW-18 has stated that police on their own have seized the

lungi, slipper and one book which were lying near scene of

offence place. But sickle was not found there. But according to

him, the sickle was found at the place of offence and the sickle

was in the hand of accused No.1. Accused No.1 has brought it

from his house. This type of evidence of PW.18 is totally

inconsistent and contradictory with the evidence of other

witnesses and evidence of Investigating officer. How this

witness came to know that accused No.1 brought sickle from his

house to scene of offence place, why the accused on his own

brought sickle to scene of offence is not forthcoming. His

evidence which is inconsistent and contradictory to the case of

the prosecution cannot be believed about the accused making

any extra judicial confession before him. It is not known as to

when and where the accused made extra judicial confession

before him. Apart from that, extra judicial confession is a weak

type of evidence. Unless there is corroboration with any other

cogent and convincing evidence, such evidence cannot be

believed at all.

The extra-judicial confession as per section 24 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a weak type of evidence. It is

difficult to rely upon the extra-judicial confession as the exact

words or even the words as nearly as possible have not been

reproduced. Such statement cannot be said to be voluntary, so

the extra-judicial confession has to be excluded from the

purview of consideration to bring home the charge. It is settled

principles of law that extra-judicial confession only if it is

voluntary truthful and reliable and beyond re-approach, then

only it can be believed, otherwise, it cannot be sole basis for

recording the confession of the accused. If the other surrounding

circumstances and the materials available on record do not

suggest complicity of the accused, then so-called extra judicial

confession cannot be believed at all. It is rather by very nature a

weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great

deal of care and caution. When it is surrounded by suspicious

circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and loses its

importance. Therefore, the Court generally look for independent

reliable corroboration before placing such extra-judicial

confession.

31. PW.19 Doddeeregowda S/o. Kullegowda is again a

witness who has seen the accused on the date of incident at

about 09:30 p.m. He has stated that himself and one

Kenchegowda were sitting on the Government Well near his

house. At that time, accused No.2 also came and sat with them.

Accused No.1 simply proceeded in front of them and PW.19 did

not ask accused No.2 about accused No.1. If at all accused No.2

has committed any offence, why accused No.2 came and sat

with them is not forthcoming. He has stated that he got

suspicion against accused, as he found accused were wearing

blood stained clothes and stated that they might have committed

the said murder. In the cross-examination, he has also admitted

that the accused were non-vegetarians and they used to cut the

animals, therefore blood stains found on the clothes of accused

might be of any animal. This evidence will not help the

prosecution in any way. The conduct of accused No.2 as stated

by this witness belies the theory of this witness seeing any of the

accused on that night.

32. PW.20 Lingegowda has stated that neither he has

given any statement before police regarding any illicit

relationship of deceased - Chikkanna with Basamma nor he knew

anything about it. Prosecution treated him as hostile witness and

cross-examined him at length, but he has denied the suggestion

that he has given any statement as per Ex.P13.

33. PW.21 Kenchegowda is having a petty shop. He has

stated that he has seen the accused on that night. He has stated

that neither he knows what type of clothes were worn by

accused nor he has seen any blood stains on the clothes worn by

the accused. He has not supported the case of the prosecution

and in the cross-examination by the prosecution, he has stated

that he has not given any statement before police as per Ex.P14.

34. PW.22 Lakshmi is working as a tailor. She has not

supported the case of the prosecution and she has stated that

she has not given any statement as per Ex.P15.

35. PW.23 Marilingegowda according to prosecution, he

has seen the accused. He has spoken with accused No.1 and

accused No.1 has made extra judicial confession before him. But

this witness denied the suggestion of any illicit relationship of

deceased - Chikkanna with PW.29 - Basamma and he has stated

that he has not given any statement in this regard as per

Ex.P16. He has not supported the prosecution charges.

36. PW.24 Dundeeramma is a witness who according to

the prosecution has seen the accused on that night, but she has

not supported the prosecution and stated that she has not given

statement before police as per Ex.P17.

37. PW.25 Raju is working as a Engineer who has

prepared the sketch map of place of offence.

38. PW.26 Nanjundaiah, ASI has given evidence is

regarding visiting the place of offence and controlling the people

gathered there.

39. PW.27 Dr. Sanjay conducted the postmortem over

the body of deceased Chikkanna on 09.11.2017 between

1:50 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. The doctor has noted 15 injuries on the

body of the said Chikkanna. The doctor has opined that the

death of the deceased - Chikkanna was caused due to

hemorrhage shock due to multiple injuries and cut throat

injuries. Accordingly, he has given post-mortem report as per

Ex.P20. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that as there

was no separate room for conducting the postmortem, it was

conducted in the open place itself. He has also admitted that

when the postmortem is conducted in the open place, certain

procedure is to be followed. He has also stated that he has not

mentioned in the report as to whether he has followed the

procedure or not. He has also stated that he has not mentioned

in the report that as to whether the injury Nos.1 to 8 could be

caused by a sickle or not. Ofcourse, his evidence indicate the

death of the deceased is homicidal.

40. PW.28 Rudraiah is the Head Constable who was

posted to check the security near place of offence.

41. PW.29 Basamma according to prosecution, she is

the main reason for committing the murder of deceased -

Chikkanna by accused. But she has stated that she never had

any illicit relationship with deceased - Chikkanna. She has not

stated that the accused have quarreled with deceased -

Chikkanna in this regard. She has deposed that she has seen the

dead body of deceased - Chikkanna. She does not find any

injuries on the dead body of deceased. The prosecution treated

her as hostile witness and cross-examined her length. But she

has stated that she has not given any statement before police as

per Ex.P22. Therefore, her evidence shows that the prosecution

has failed to prove that she has any illicit relationship with

deceased - Chikkanna. Therefore, the very motive alleged by the

prosecution for commission of offence by accused is falls flat.

42. PW.30 K.V.Krishnappa is the Police Inspector who

has stated about receiving the complaint and registering the

case and arresting the accused on 25.11.2007. Whereas the

incident occurred on 09.11.2007. All the witnesses have stated

that accused were very much present near dead body when this

police official visited the place of offence. Therefore, arrest of

this accused creates doubt about investigation done by him.

43. PW.31 S.E.Gangadharaswamy has conducted

further investigation and has seized the material objects by

conducting the panchanama. In view of evidence of prosecution

witnesses who have not supported the case of the prosecution

regarding seizure of clothes worn by accused and the evidence

of witnesses that accused were very much present and sickle

was also lying at the spot as stated by PW.1 and the evidence of

this witness creates doubt about investigation done by him

implicating the accused in this case. There are number of

omissions and contradictions elicited from him as evident from

the evidence of other prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the

evidence of this witness about accused giving voluntary

statement or confession statement has no basis at all.

44. On perusing the entire evidence of prosecution, it is

evident that there are material contradictions and

inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The

evidence of prosecution witnesses is full of assumptions and

presumptions.

45. Admittedly, in this case, there are no eye witnesses

to the incident. The prosecution story is built up making

allegations against the accused and their motive for the

commission of murder is that deceased - Chikkanna was having

illicit relationship with PW.29 - Basamma who is the aunt of the

accused persons. None of the witnesses examined on behalf of

prosecution have stated anything about deceased - Chikkanna

having any such relationship much less illicit relationship with

PW.29 Basamma. Though motive is not necessary to be proved

by prosecution in all criminal cases, but motive assumes

importance in a case based on circumstantial evidence. Because

in the absence of any eye witness, the prosecution has to rely on

circumstances to show the motive for commission of offence. In

this type of cases, motive assumes much importance. But here

the evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly shows that the

motive is not proved by prosecution. Further, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF ODISHA v.

BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA12 has clearly narrated the

instances of circumstances which the prosecution has to prove in

the case rests on circumstantial evidence and it is clearly held

that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought

to be proved must be cogently or firmly established and the

circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly

pointing towards the guilt of the accused and the circumstances

taken cumulatively must form a chain so complete that there is

no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability,

the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The

circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be

complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis

than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should

AIR 2021 (SC) 1375

not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be

inconsistent with his innocence.

46. It is the settled principles of law that always in

criminal cases the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHARAD BIRDHICHAND

SARDA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA13 wherein at paragraph

No.153, it is held that the conditions precedent for conviction is

based on circumstantial evidence which must be fully established

and the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborated what are those

conditions which reads as follows:

                "153.     A    close   analysis      of    this
          decision(HANUMANT       v. STATE      OF    MADHYA

PRADESH, AIR 1952 SC 343) would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or

(1984) 4 SCC 116

should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made:

"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

(4)they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

47. Regarding appreciation of evidence in a criminal case

based on circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of NIZAM & ANOTHER v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN,

(2016) 1 SCC 550 at paras 8, 9 and 10 held as under:-

8. "The Case of the prosecution is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused totally inconsistent with his evidence.

9. The principle of circumstantial evidence has been reiterated by this Court in a plethora of cases. In Bodhraj v. State of J & K (2002) 5 SCC 45 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 201, wherein this Court quoted number of judgments and held as under: (SCC pp.55-56, paras 10-11)

"10. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of

Rajasthan (1977) 2 SCC 99 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 250, Eradu v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316, Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (1983) 2 SCC 330, State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi (1985) Suppl. SCC 79, Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1987) 1 SCC 1 and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v.

State of M.P., 1989 Suppl. (1) SCC 560) The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621 it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt.

11. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus: (SCC pp. 206-07, para 21)

"21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence."

10. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681, this court held as under:

"12. In the case in hand there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken

cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence."

The same principles were reiterated in Sunil Clifford Daniel vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 205, Sampath Kumar vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri (2012) 4 SCC 124 and Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 13 SCC 621 and a number of other decisions."

48. In the light of the above referred decisions, the

present evidence of the prosecution is considered, it is evident

that nobody has seen the accused committing the murder. There

is no proof or evidence regarding any motive as alleged by the

prosecution. Accused No.2 is stated to be only the friend of

accused No.1. PW.29 is stated to be aunt of accused No.1.

There is no evidence to show in what way accused is having

relationship with this PW.29, where she is residing, why accused

No.1 should get angry with deceased - Chikkanna, if he is having

illicit relationship with PW.29 is not forthcoming. The wife of

deceased Chikkanna herself has neither supported the

prosecution, stated anything against the accused nor she has

stated that she has got suspicion against accused. Apart from

that, the learned sessions judge has referred to the FSL report,

wherein it is stated that some of the articles which were found

with human blood stains and they are of 'O' blood group. In the

absence of any material to show that the said blood was that of

accused or of the deceased - Chikkanna, no inference could be

drawn to implicate the accused that the accused have committed

the murder of deceased - Chikkanna. On the other hand, seizure

of clothes itself is not proved as panch witnesses have not

supported the seizure of sickle which is stated to be used for the

commission of offence and the same is not established by the

prosecution by adducing cogent and convincing evidence as

sickle was very much lying on the spot itself. Even the father of

deceased himself has not expressed any suspicion against the

accused neither in his oral evidence or in written complaint.

None of the circumstances points towards the accused.

Absolutely, there is no circumstance, much less, chain of

circumstances to link the accused with the crime. Ofcourse, a life

is lost. Simply because a human life is lost, innocent person

could not be implicated without there being any legally

admissible evidence against them. The court presumes every

accused to be innocent until the guilt is proved. Learned counsel

relied upon the decision of State of Odisha v. Banabihari

Mohapatra14 referred supra wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has stated regarding doctrine of innocence and burden of proof

and at paras 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39, it is held as under:

34. As held by this Court in Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2016 (4) SCC 357, an appeal against acquittal has always been on an altogether different pedestal from an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal, where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity. In this case, it cannot be said that the reasons given by the High Court to reverse the conviction of the accused are flimsy, untenable or bordering on perverse appreciation of evidence.

35. Before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must fully be established and the facts so established should be consistent only

AIR 2021 SC 1375

with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. There has to be a chain of evidence so complete, as not to leave any reasonable doubt for any conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the Accused.

36. In Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 12 SCC 158, this Court held that the principles for conviction of the accused based on circumstantial evidence are:

"10.1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be proved must be cogently or firmly established.

10.2. The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.

10.3. The circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else.

10.4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."

37. Keeping the above test in mind, we have no iota of doubt that the Trial Court rightly acquitted the Accused Respondents. There is a strong

possibility that the accused, who was as per the opinion of the doctor who performed the autopsy, intoxicated with alcohol, might have accidentally touched a live electrical wire, may be while he was asleep. The impugned judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay does not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

38. It is well settled by a plethora of judicial pronouncement of this Court that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This proposition has been reiterated in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam reported in AIR 2013 SC 3817.

39. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, this Court observed:-

"Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought is to be established by circumstantial evidence."

49. Therefore, in the light of principles stated in the

above referred decisions, if the evidence of prosecution is

re-appreciated, it is evident that there are material

contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions in the evidence of

prosecution witnesses. The evidence of prosecution witnesses

does not inspire any confidence in them. As already stated in the

above referred decisions, the prosecution has failed to prove the

case by providing cogent and convincing evidence to connect the

accused with guilt. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision in

the case of SADHU SARAN SINGH v. STATE OF U.P15

referred to the principles regarding appreciation of evidence and

considering the judgment of acquittal by the appellate court held

that the appeal against acquittal has always been an altogether

different pedestal from an appeal against conviction. Because

presumption of innocence in favour of accused which is

reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of

acquittal only when there is perversity. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of State of Odisha referred supra, at

paragraph Nos.35 and 36 of the said judgment relied on the

decision of SHANTHI DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN16 and

has referred to the principles for conviction of accused based on

circumstantial evidence and after elaborating the said principles,

Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 38 held that it is well settled by a

2016 (4) SCC 357

(2012) 12 SCC 158

plethora of judicial pronouncement of this court that suspicion,

however strong cannot take the place of proof. An accused is

presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable

doubt and also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of KALI RAM v. STATE OF HIMACHAL

PRADESH17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another decision in

the case of SAMPAT BABSO KALE AND ANOTHER v.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA18 has held thus:

"8. With regard to the powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, the law is well established that the presumption of innocence which is attached to every accused person gets strengthened when such an accused is acquitted by the trial court and the High Court should not lightly interfere with the decision of the trial court which has recorded the evidence and observed the demeanour of witnesses. This Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415], laid down the following principles:-

"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:

AIR 1973 SC 2773

[(2019) 4 SCC 739],

(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 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."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision has

again reiterated the principles regarding considering the

judgment of acquittal and it clearly held that if there two views

are possible, then the view favourable to the accused will have

to accepted by the court.

50. In view of the principles stated in the above referred

decisions, evidence placed by the prosecution and the

discussions made above, we find that the judgment of acquittal

passed by the learned Sessions judge is neither illegal nor

perverse. The learned Sessions judge has rightly appreciated