State Of Karnataka vs Babu Bharama Kamble
2022 Latest Caselaw 5510 Kant

                              1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

                          PRESENT

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

                            AND

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR


                   CRL.A. NO.100181/2017

BETWEEN

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE BELAGAVI RURAL POLICE
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
                                           .....APPELLANT
(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. S.P.P.)

AND

1.    BABU BHARAMA KAMBLE,
      AGE:45 YEARS, OCC:MASON WORK

2.    MONAPPA BABU KAMBLE,
      AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC:MASON WORK

3.    RAVI BABU KAMBLE,
      AGE:23 YEARS, OCC: MASON WORK

4.    YALLAPPA BABU KAMBLE,
      AGE:26 YEARS, OCC: MASON WORK
                                       2




      ALL ARE R/O HANGARAGA,
      AMBEDKAR GALLI, DISTRICT BELAGAVI.
                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI Z M HATTARAKI, ADV.)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1)
AND (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO
APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 09.01.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS
JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN S.C.NO. 201 OF 2010 AND TO CONVICT AND
SENTENCE THE RESPONDENTS / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 307, 323, 324, 341, 504, 506
READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

     THIS   APPEAL  HAVING    BEEN    HEARD   AND
RESERVED   FOR JUDGMENT ON 05.03.2022, THIS DAY,
RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR, J. PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:


                              JUDGMENT

The State being aggrieved by the judgment of Acquittal

passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgavi(hereinafter

referred to as 'the trial Court', for short), in S.C.

No.201/2010, dated 9.01.2017 has filed this appeal under

section 378 (1) & (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908

(hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.', for short).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

are referred with the original rankings occupied by them

before the trial Court.

3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are as

under:

That there was a dispute between the complainant and

accused with regard to an open space situated in the southern

side of the house of the complainant situated in Ambedkar

Galli, Hangaraga, Belagavi. On 31.03.2010, at about 10:30

p.m., the complainant, CW-5 and family members were sitting

on the Katta of their house. At that time, CW-5 went in the

open plot by the side of the house in order to answer the

nature's call. Then all the accused started abusing CW-5 in

vulgar language. Then complainant and his father Bharma

objected for the same and at that time, the accused No.1

threw chilly powder on them. It is also alleged that accused

No.3 assaulted with stick on complainant's left hand and leg

causing grievous injuries with an intention to cause his death

while accused No.4 wrongfully restrained the father of the

complainant and assaulted him by the hands by giving life

threat. It is further alleged that accused No.2 with an

intention to cause the death of the father of the complainant,

assaulted on his head with iron pipe and thereby he sustained

injuries. Then neighbours came there and pacified the dispute

and accused went away by threatening the complainant and

others. The injured were initially shifted to District Hospital,

Belgavi and on the next day, the father of the complainant

was shifted to K.L.E. Hospital for further treatment. It is also

alleged that he succumbed in the hospital on 07.04.2010

without responding to treatment on account of the injuries

sustained by him in the incident dated 31.03.2010. In the

hospital itself, the complainant, on 01.04.2010 morning,

lodged a complaint and after the death of father of the

complainant, Section 302 of IPC was incorporated. The

Investigating Officer after completing the investigation, has

submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 427, 504

and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. After the submission of

the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate has taken

cognizance of the offences. The learned Magistrate has

committed the case to the Sessions Court as the offences are

exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The accused were

arrested on 02.04.2010 and subsequently were enlarged on

bail.

4. After hearing both the parties, the learned

Sessions Judge has framed charge under Sections 302, 323,

324, 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against

the accused and same is read over and explained to the

accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution

has examined in all 20 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-20 and also

placed reliance on 26 documents marked at Exs.P-1 to P-26

and 5 material objects during the cross examination of the

witnesses. Exs.D-1 and D-2 were also got marked. After

conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement

of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded to enable

the accused to explain the incriminating materials appearing

in the prosecution case against them. The case of the accused

is of total denial and they did not choose to lead any oral

evidence in support of their defense.

6. After having heard the arguments and after

perusing the oral and documentary evidence placed before

him, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution

has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences

under Sections 302, 323, 3024, 341, 504 and 506 read with

Section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby

acquitted all the four accused. Being aggrieved by this

judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.

7. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would

contend that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial

Court is erroneous and the learned Sessions Judge has failed

to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence in

proper prospective. He would further contend that the motive

is established in view of the dispute pertaining to open space

between the parties and the evidence of eyewitnesses PW-1

to PW-4 and the medical evidence of PW-16 clearly establish

that the death is a homicidal death and there is no reason for

discarding the evidence of the eyewitnesses. He would also

contend that material witnesses have supported the case of

the prosecution and in spite of that the learned Sessions

Judge has brushed aside the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4

without assigning proper reasons. The contradictions as well

as omissions pointed out in the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 are

not so material so as to acquit the accused for such a serious

offence of murder. He would also contend that the trial Court

has erred in discarding the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 on the

ground that they are the interested witnesses, which is

erroneous. He would further contend that the other

circumstantial witnesses have corroborated the case of the

prosecution but the learned Sessions Judge without

considering any of these aspects, in a mechanical way, by

highlighting the minor contradictions, omissions and

improvements, has acquitted the accused/respondents herein

which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. As such, he

would seek for setting aside the impugned judgment of

acquittal and prayed for allowing the appeal by convicting the

accused/respondents herein.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for accused/

respondents would support the judgment of acquittal

passed by the trial Court. He would contend that the

evidence discloses that the very scene of offence itself is

under dispute and all along in the complaint and remand

yadi, there is reference of use of iron rod but the weapon

itself was changed by implanting iron pipe. He would also

contend that no motive was forthcoming as alleged as the

evidence of PW-2 in this regard is silent and the medical

evidence Ex.P-16 creates the doubt regarding the cause of

death, as there is mention of death by accident and there is

no nexus between the death and the alleged assault. He

would also contend that there is a counter case against the

complainant and others in respect of assault on accused

herein and this is established from Exs.D-1 to D-2 wherein

accused Nos.1 and 3 have sustained injuries and

prosecution has not made any attempt to explain the

injuries on accused and both the case and counter case

were not disposed simultaneously on the same day. But

they were disposed of after gap of more than fifteen days

and non-explanation of injuries on the body of the accused

and the procedure adopted by the trial Court has seriously

prejudiced the accused in this regard. Hence, he would

contend that the judgment of acquittal does not suffer from

any perversity or infirmity so as to call for any interference

by this Appellate Court. As such, he would seek for

dismissal of the appeal.

9. We have heard the arguments advanced by the

learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and the learned

counsel for respondents. We have also given our careful

consideration to the arguments advanced by both the

counsels and perused the records of the trial Court. Now

the following point would arise for our consideration:

"Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is perverse, arbitrary and capricious so as to call for any interference by this Court?"

10. The complainant is examined as PW-1 while PW-

2 to PW-4 are eyewitnesses. PW-5 and 7 are eyewitnesses

but turned hostile. PW-6, PW-8 and PW-9 are hearsay

witnesses. PW-16 is the Medical Officer who has conducted

the autopsy on the dead body and PW-19 is the Medical

Officer, who has initially treated the deceased as well as

injured in the District Hospital, Belagavi. The other

witnesses are formal witnesses including the Investigating

Officers.

11. The prosecution is required to prove that the

death is a homicidal death. Though the evidence of PW-16

coupled with Ex.P-15 discloses that the deceased died due

to head injury and it supports the case of the prosecution

regarding the homicidal death, it is to be proved that there

is any nexus between the alleged incident dated

31.03.2010 at 9.30 p.m. and death which is said to have

occurred on 07.04.2010.

12. PW-1, Ravi is the complainant as well as the

injured. According to him, on account of dispute regarding

the open space by the side of their house, on 31.01.2010,

at about 9.30 p.m., CW-5 Hirachand went to answer

nature's call in the open space by the side of the house and

at that time, accused No.1 picked up a quarrel with him by

abusing him in vulgar language. He further deposes that

when he and his father intervened, at that time, the

accused No.1 brought chilly powder and threw on himself

and his father while accused No.2 assaulted his father on

his head and while accused No.4 caught hold of his father

and accused No.3 assaulted the complainant by stick on his

left forearm. He further deposed that his mother and

neighbours pacified the quarrel and accused went away by

giving life threat and in the hospital, CW-11 who is another

brother wrote the complaint as per his instructions.

According to him, the incident took place on the public road

in front of their house. This witness was cross-examined

and in his cross-examination, he admits that CW-7 to CW-

10 are his relatives. He further deposed that CW-7 to CW-

10 came to the spot after the incident was over. He has

specifically deposes that he has narrated the incident and

his brother reduced it into writing in the hospital. But very

interestingly, his cross-examination clearly discloses that he

is giving evidence as stated by the police. In his cross-

examination, at page 7 in paragraph 7, PW-1 admitted that

he is stating the facts as instructed by police and this part

of cross-examination reads as under:

7) xxx........ "Police told me that I have to give evidence that accused no.1 Babu thrown the chilly power, accused no.2 assaulted my father with iron pipe, accused no.3 caught hold my father tightly and accused no.4 assaulted me with the wooden stick."

13. If this version is taken into consideration, it is

evident that he is giving evidence as per the instructions of

the police. In the further cross-examination, he has

admitted that for the first time, he has stated before the

Court regarding assault on his father by iron pipe and also

admitted that his brother PW-8 did not read over the

contents of Ex.P-1 to him. Hence, it is evident that his

evidence admittedly contains lot of contradictions and

improvements.

14. PW-2, Hirachand is the brother of the

complainant and he deposes that on 31.03.2010 at 10.00

p.m. he went to attend the call of the nature in the

disputed open space and at that time, accused No.1 abused

him in vulgar language. He further deposed that when his

father intervened the accused threw chilly power on his

father and his brother i.e., the complainant and accused

No.2 assaulted his father on his head by iron pipe while

accused No.4 caught hold of his father and when

complainant attempted to rescue, the accused No.3

assaulted on left forearm by wooden stick. His cross-

examination reveals that he came to know about the

quarrel regarding open space only from his mother. He

also asserted that CW-7 and CW-8 came to spot after the

incident. He has also asserted that PW-1 complainant did

not attempt to rescue his father which is contradictory

statement to his examination-in-chief. He has admitted

that certain facts were not stated by him before the

Investigating Officer.

15. PW-3 Kamala is the mother of the complainant

and deposes that on the date of incident, PW-2 Hirachand

went to attend call of nature in the disputed open space

and accused abused him in vulgar language. When her

husband and complainant intervened, accused Babu and

Monappa threw chilly powder on them. As per the case of

the prosecution, only accused No.1 threw chilly powder on

complainant and deceased but this witness stated that

Monappa had also threw chilly powder which is an

improvement. She has also deposed that accused No.2

assaulted on the head of her husband while accused No.4

was holding him and accused No.3 assaulted her son with

stick on his left forearm. She has also specifically stated

that incident took place on the road in front of their house.

She claims that the police constable Vijay Kamble is not

related to her. But PW-1 himself admitted the said police

constable was related to him.

16. PW-4 claims to be an eyewitness and he admits

to be relative of PW-3 Kamala. He deposes regarding

assault by accused. His cross-examination reveals that PW-

3 is a quarrelsome lady and people of the village fear to

talk with her.

17. PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 are hearsay witnesses

and their evidences do not assist the prosecution in any

way. Except the fact that the complainant and Bharma

sustained some injuries but none of these witnesses

explained the injuries caused to accused Nos.1 and 3 under

Exs.D-1 and D-2 and counter case lodged against them.

18. PW-8 is the brother of the complainant and

hearsay witness who drafted the complaint as per the

instructions of the complainant.

19. PW-10 is a spot mahazar witness. Though he

deposed about drawing up of spot mahazar, he did not

support regarding seizure of clothes and inquest mahazar.

Accordingly, PW-11 though supported the drawing up of

spot mahazar, he did not support regarding seizure in his

presence.

20. PW-12 is the inquest pancha and PW-13 is a

circumstantial witness who have turned hostile.

21. PW-16 Ashok Kumar Shetty is the medical

officer of KLE Hospital who conducted the postmortem on

the dead body of the deceased. He deposed that on

07.04.2010 between 2.20 p.m. to 3.15 p.m., he conducted

the postmortem and issued postmortem report as per Ex.P-

15. He has also deposed regarding the injuries found on

the dead body and cause of death is due to injury to the

head.

22. PW-17, PW-18 and PW-20 are the Police Officers

and Investigating Officers.

23. PW-19 is the material witness in the instant

case as the injured were admitted to the District Hospital,

Belagavi, immediately on the same night and this witness

has attended them. His evidence discloses that on

31.03.2010 at about 11.30 p.m., he examined the injured

Ravi Bharma Hangrekar who had suffered injuries. His

evidence discloses that Ravi suffered fracture of mid shaft

ulna of right hand and one simple injury but as regards the

deceased, he states that he suffered a cut lacerated wound

over right side of forehead and cut lacerated wound on

upper eyelid and both the injuries are simple and could

have been caused by hard and blunt object. He has issued

wound certificate as per Ex.P-20. This witness in his cross-

examination admitted that on 01.04.2010 injured Bharma

got himself discharged from the hospital against medical

advice. He has also deposed that injuries mentioned in

Ex.P-20 could be caused if person falls in a pit by road side

and injuries mentioned in Ex.P-20 are normally not

sufficient to cause the death of any person. This evidence

of PW-19 and Ex.P-20 goes a long way in the case of the

prosecution.

24. Now Ex.P-20 is required to be considered along

with Ex.P-15. In Ex.P-15, while conducting postmortem, the

Medical Officer, PW-16 has recorded the injuries caused,

where he has noted multiple abrasions over right forehead,

abrasion over left forehead, abrasion over outer aspect of

shoulder joint. But when these injuries referred in Ex.P-15

is compared with Ex.P-20 which is the first medical

certificate, it discloses that only cut lacerated wound on

right forehead was noticed. Further there was cut lacerated

wound over right upper eyelid. These injuries referred in

Ex.P-20 are not referred in Ex.P-15. When both Exs.P-15

and P-20 are pertaining to the same person, the injuries

should be corresponding and admittedly PW-19 has

examined the witness for the first time immediately after

the incident. PW-19 has treated while PW-16 has

conducted autopsy on 07.04.2010 and the evidence of PW-

19 discloses that the injuries suffered by the deceased were

simple and not fatal. Further, his evidence also discloses

that the injured was discharged against medical advice as

per his own request. There is no material evidence as to

what has transpired in between 01.04.2010 to 07.04.2010

and the entire case history of treatment is not placed

before the Court pertaining to KLE Hospital.

25. The prosecution has relied on Ex.P-16 which is

the certificate given by KLE Hospital regarding cause of

death which discloses that the death is due to

cardiorespiratory arrest due to subdural hematoma etc.

But Ex.P-16 is got marked in the evidence of PW-16 who is

not the author of the document. Ex.P-16 is signed by one

Dr.Soumya and she was not examined. Very interestingly,

in Ex.P-16, the manner of death is shown to be because of

'accident'. Hence, there is no corroboration between Exs.P-

15, P-16 and P-20 and they run completely inconsistent

and contrary. The prosecution is not able to establish the

nexus between the alleged incident and assault.

Considering these aspects, the entire case of the

prosecution becomes doubtful as the prosecution tried to

improvise the case of simple injuries to that of fatal one.

26. Admittedly, the complaint was filed 13 hours

after the incident. The evidence of PW-19 further discloses

that discharge from the District Hospital was against the

medical advice. Further, there is counter case faced by the

complainant and others and Exs.D1 and D2 disclose that

accused Nos.1 and 3 sustained injuries. The prosecution

did not make any attempt to explain how the accused

Nos.1 and 3 sustained injuries and the evidence of

Investigating Officer discloses that he did not make any

attempt to ascertain how these accused suffered injuries.

It was his duty to do so but he has not done so. The

cardinal rule of law is that the best available evidence

should be brought before the Court but in the instant case,

the evidence given by the witnesses appears to be quite

unnatural and it is also evident that there is inconsistency

regarding scene of offence. Further, iron rod is planted

with iron pipe, which is not explained by the investigating

agency. No doubt, the evidence of interested witnesses

cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are

interested but their evidence is required to be scrutinized

with great caution in order to rule out false implication.

This is required to be considered in view of the fact that

there is a counter case and evidence brought on record

discloses that accused Nos.1 and 3 sustained injuries. The

records also disclose that investigation is not done by the

same Investigating Officer and they were not disposed of

simultaneously but they were disposed of at different dates,

though tried by the same Sessions Judge. This definitely

has prejudiced the accused and it is not a mere irregularity

so as to ignore this aspect considering the available

evidence of only interested witnesses.

27. No doubt, discrepancies, minor variations in the

evidence are quite natural due to normal errors on

observations, loss of memory due to lapse of time, due to

mental disposition such as shock, horror or individual IQ

regarding perceiving a particular offence from a particular

way. But these normal discrepancies would go to the root

of the case. However, when the discrepancies are major,

they play vital role and false implication is required to be

considered with caution while appreciating the evidence of

interested witnesses.

28. The records disclose that the counter case in

S.C.No.95/2011 was disposed of on 17.12.2015 but this

case came to be disposed of on 09.01.2017. The entire

evidence led in both the instant cases cannot be read in

other case so as to get influenced unless it is brought on

record as per the Evidence Act. In the instant case, Exs.D-

1 and D2 were marked during the cross-examination and

there is no explanation by the prosecution regarding

injuries being caused to accused Nos.1 and 3.

29. Further, as per the evidence of PW-1, the scene

of offence is the passage between the house of the

deceased and accused, while PW-2 and PW-3 state that it is

a public road. This is material contradiction as the scene of

offence itself is shifted.

30. Further, regarding use of weapon, there is

material contradiction. According to the witnesses, M.O.1 is

iron pipe but complaint is in respect of iron rod. The

learned counsel for respondent has placed reliance on a

decision in the case of Nathi Lal Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh reported in (1990) SCC (Criminal) 638

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the

guidelines for conducting the trial of case and counter case.

The Hon'ble Apex Court mandates that each case must be

decided on the basis of the evidence placed on record in

that particular case without being influenced in any manner

by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case but

judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge

one after another. But in the instant case, the said cardinal

rule is not followed. On the same point, learned counsel for

respondent has further placed reliance on a decision in the

case of State of Karnataka, by Circle Inspector of

Police Vs. Hosakeri Ningappa and another reported in

ILR 2012 KARNATAKA 509 wherein it is observed as

under:

A) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973-- Case and counter case -- Trial of -- Procedure to be followed in the absence of a specific statute --

Importance of law declared by the Supreme Court in trying the case and counter case -- HELD, The procedure to be adopted in case and counter case is that the investigation should be conducted by the same Investigating Officer and the prosecution should be conducted by two different Public Prosecutors. The trial should be conducted by the same Court. After recording the evidence and after hearing the arguments the judgment should be reserved in one case and thereafter the evidence should be recorded and the arguments should be heard in the other case. it is needless to

observe that the arguments in both the matters shall be heard by the same Learned Judge. The judgment should be pronounced by the same Judge simultaneously i.e., one after the other. -- In deciding each case, the Trial Judge can only rely on the evidence recorded in that particular case and the evidence recorded in the cross case (or counter case) cannot be looked into. The Judge shall not be influenced by the evidence or arguments in the cross case. However, if the evidence recorded in one case is brought on record in another case in accordance with the procedure known to law, then, such evidence which is legally brought on record can be looked into. Except in such situation, the evidence recorded in one case cannot be looked into in another case. -- FURTHER HELD, if the Trial Court by not adopting the salutary procedure mentioned supra disposes of the case and the counter case on different dates acquitting the accused therein and no appeal is preferred in one of the cases and appeal is preferred in the case decided later, the proceedings in the later case are not vitiated. The Court cannot compel the State to file an appeal in any given case. It is left to the wisdom of the State to decide as to whether the Judgment passed by the Court below needs to be questioned

or not. If the State is satisfied about the Judgment passed in one case it may choose not to file appeal in that case. However, the State may feel that in the other case (i.e., in the counter case), appeal may be necessary. In such an event, nobody can prevent the State from filing the appeal. If two cases arise out of the same incident and if two charge sheets are filed, two trials will be held. -- In a given case, the Trial Judge may choose to acquit the accused in both the cases or may choose to convict the accused in both the cases; the Trial Judge may even convict the accused in one case and acquit the accused in another case. The decision will depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. Merely because the appeal is not filed in one case and the appeal is filed in the other case, the proceedings will not get vitiated automatically in the later case. In Court's considered opinion, in such a situation, the accused in such cases will have to show prejudice suffered by him. However, as a proposition of law, it cannot be laid down that the appeal filed in the second case by the State questioning the Judgment and Order of acquittal needs to be dismissed in limine on the ground that the proceedings in the later case is vitiated. It all depends upon facts and circumstances of

individual case to be decided by the Appellate Court to see whether any prejudice is caused to the accused in not conducting the trial of the case and the cross case simultaneously."

31. The principles of the Apex Court in Nathi Lal's

case reiterated by the Full Bench of this Court and further

held that the investigation should be conducted by the

same Investigating Officer but in the instant case, the

investigation is not conducted by the same Investigating

Officer but different Investigating Officers have conducted

the investigation and both the cases were disposed of on

different dates. No doubt, the High Court basing on the

decision of Nathi Lal's case, held that procedure irregularity

does not vitiate the trial unless it causes prejudice to the

accused and has occasioned the failure of justice. In the

instant case, no doubt, the trial was conducted in the same

Court and they were disposed of on different dates which

can be treated as procedural irregularity. However, the

investigation conducted by two different Investigating

Officers and that has definitely prejudiced the accused and

the prosecution is not able to explain any of these aspects.

Hence, the proceedings are vitiated in this regard.

32. Apart from that, the medical evidence itself

discloses that there is inconsistency in Exs.P-15, P-16 and

P-20 and there is no nexus between these documents.

Very interestingly, in Ex.P-16 specifically stated that it is

the case of the 'accident' but the prosecution is now

asserting that it is a homicidal death because of the assault

made by the accused. The evidence of PW-19 discloses

that the deceased sustained only simple injuries which are

not fatal. No doubt, the medical evidence that discloses

that complainant did sustain injuries but there was no

attempt on the part of the prosecution to explain regarding

injuries found on the accused Nos.1 and 3. It was the

primary duty of the Investigating Officer to explain these

aspects but cross-examination of the Investigating Officer

discloses that he did not make any attempt in this regard.

Further weapon was replaced and place of offence is

also shifted. Looking all these anomalies, it is not safe to

rely the evidence of interested witnesses on PW-1 to PW-4

as their evidence consist lot of contradictions.

33. Further the accused were acquitted by the trial

Court and as such, their innocence is more strengthened by

the judgment of acquittal. Further, when two views are

possible, the view favourable to the accused shall prevail

and this is again fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of M. R. Purushotham v. State of

Karnataka reported in 2015 SC (Criminal) 139 and in

the case of Muralidhar @ Gidda and another vs. State

of Karnataka reported in AIR 2014 SC 2200.

34. The trial Court has appreciated oral and

documentary evidence in detail and analysed the same in

proper prospective. Looking into these facts and

circumstances, the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial

Court cannot be said to be perverse, capricious or arbitrary

so as to call for any interference by this Court. As such,

the appeal is devoid of any merits. Accordingly, we answer

the point under consideration in the negative and proceed

to pass the following:

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment of

acquittal dated 9.01.2017 passed by the Principal Sessions

Judge, Belagavi, in S.C. No.201/2010.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE Naa