Karnataka High Court

Smt Rukmini vs State By S.P.P on 15 December, 2023

                                              -1-
                                                         NC: 2023:KHC:45790
                                                      CRL.A No. 972 of 2014




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                                            BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 972 OF 2014


                   BETWEEN:

                   SMT. RUKMINI,
                   W/O B.M. KUMAR,
                   AGED MAJOR,
                   R/AT BILLUR VILLAGE,
                   BANAKAL HOBLI,
                   MUDIGERE TALUK,
                   CHIKMAGALUR - 577 132.

                                                               ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. JAVEED S, ADVOCATE)


                   AND:

                   1.    STATE BY S.P.P,
Digitally signed         BY BANAKAL POLICE STATION,
by SANDHYA S
                         CHIKMAGALUR,
Location: High
Court of                 REPRESENTED BY
Karnataka                STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                         HIGH COURT BUILDING,
                         BANGALORE - 560 001.

                   2.    P.L. PRAMOD,
                         S/O P.K. LAKMANA GOWDA,
                         AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

                   3.    P.T. NANDAKUMAR,
                         S/O THAMMANNA GOWDA,
                         AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2023:KHC:45790
                                     CRL.A No. 972 of 2014




4.   SANDESH,
     S/O P.P.MANJEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

5.   P.M. RAGHU,
     S/O MOTEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

6.   T.V. SAMPATH,
     S/O P.E. VASANTHEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

     RESPONDENT NO.2 to 6
     R/AT PATTADUR VILLAGE,
     BELLUR POST,
     MUDIGERE TALUK,
     CHIKMAGALUR - 577 132.

7.   B.C. RAVI,
     S/O CHANDREGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
     R/AT BELLUR VILLAGE AND POST,
     MUDIGERE TALUK,
     CHIKMAGALUR - 577 132.

                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI. JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7)

      THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S. 378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED:11.7.14 IN SPL.C.NO.42/13
PASSED BY THE I ADDL.DIST. AND SJ., CHIKMAGALUR. TO
CONVICT THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 7 HEREIN FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 427, 448, 504, 354, 323,
324, 506, 149 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1)(X) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                -3-
                                               NC: 2023:KHC:45790
                                            CRL.A No. 972 of 2014




                          JUDGMENT

The complainant- Smt. Rukmini has preferred this appeal

under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

against the judgment of acquittal passed by the I Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Chikmagaluru in Spl.C.No.42/2013

dated 11.07.2014.

2. The rank of the parties in this appeal are referred in

the same rank as referred by the trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that:

On 16.05.2013 at about 8.30 a.m. at Billur Village,

Mudigere Taluk, when PW-1 - Smt. Rukmini was in her house

along with her children, the accused with the common object

being the member of unlawful assembly holding the deadly

weapon criminally trespassed the house of PW-1. Accused

Nos.1 to 3 dragged the hair of PW-1 and outraged her modesty

and also assaulted to PW-1 -Smt. Rukmini on her chest, face

and kicked her and voluntarily caused simple hurt to PW-1.

The accused having common object abused PW-1 in filthy

language and also referring her caste caused criminal

intimidation by giving threat to PW-1. It is also alleged that the

NC: 2023:KHC:45790

accused having common object, broken the glass and tiles with

bricks and stones and caused damages to the house of PW-1.

Thus, the accused have committed offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 448, 504, 354, 323, 324, 506(2)

read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the 'IPC' for

short) and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and

Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4. After registration of the case, the summons were

issued to the accused. In response to the summons, the

accused appeared before the trial Court and enlarged on bail.

On hearing charges, trial Court has framed the charges for the

alleged commission of offences. Same was read over and

explained to the accused in the language known to them.

Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, the

prosecution has examined 10 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-10 and

11 documents were marked as Ex-P1 to P11. On closure of

prosecutions and evidence, statement under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence

of prosecution witnesses, but they have not chosen to lead any

NC: 2023:KHC:45790

defence against their behalf. On hearing the arguments, the

trial Court has acquitted the accused for the alleged

commission of offences. Being aggrieved by this the impugned

judgment of acquittal, State has not preferred any appeal, but

the victim - PW-1 has preferred this appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant has submitted his arguments that the trial Court has

not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance

with law. The learned Sessions judge has not considered the

evidence of eye witnesses and also victim - PW-1, 2, 3 and 6.

On all these grounds he sought for allow the appeal.

6. As against this, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondents has submitted his arguments that the

trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in

accordance with law and facts that there are no grounds to

interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. On all these

grounds he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

NC: 2023:KHC:45790

7. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on

perusal of the records, the following points would arise for

consideration:

1. Whether the appellant has made out a

grounds to interfere with the impugned

judgment of acquittal ?

2. What order?

8. My answer for the above points are as under:

      Point No.1 :      Negative;

      Point No.2 :      As per final order.


      Regarding Point No.1:

9. Before adverting to the actual facts of the case and

appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to refer the dictum of

Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope and power of Appellate

Court in appeal against the order of acquittal.

10. In the case of MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI & OTHERS

v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE

SC 676, at paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is held thus:

"23. While considering the scope of power of the appellate court in an appeal against the order of acquittal, after referring to various judgments,

NC: 2023:KHC:45790

in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007)4 SCC 415, this Court summarised the principle as under:-

"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, 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

NC: 2023:KHC:45790

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."

11. In the case of MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS reported

in 2019 SCC ONLINE 69, at paragraph 16 of the judgment it

is held as under:

"16. The High Court in the present case was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. In such a case, it is well settled that the High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because it opines that a different view is possible or even preferable. The High Court, in other words, should not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because two views are possible. The interference of the High Court in such cases is governed by well-established principles. According to these principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence by the trial court is capricious or its conclusions are without evidence that the High Court may reverse an order of acquittal. The High Court may be justified in interfering where it finds that the order of acquittal is not in accordance with law and that the approach of the trial court has led to a miscarriage of justice. ..."

12. In the case of HARI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF

RAJASTHAN reported in 2000 SCC ONLINE 933, at

paragraph 4 of the judgment, it is observed thus:

"4. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan on the other hand contended that the power of the High

NC: 2023:KHC:45790

Court while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal is in no way different from the power while hearing an appeal against conviction and the Court, therefore was fully justified in re-appreciating the entire evidence, upon which the order of acquittal was based. The High Court having examined the reasons of the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PWs 6 & 7 and having arrived at the conclusion, that those reasons are in the realm of conjectures and there has been gross miscarriage of justice and the mis- appreciation of the evidence on record is the basis for acquittal, was fully entitled to set aside an order of acquittal and no error can be said to have been committed. It is too well settled that the power of the High Court, while hearing an appeal against an acquittal is as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction and it had full power to re- appreciate the entire evidence, but if two views on the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal, merely because it feels that it would sitting as a trial court, have taken the other view. While re- appreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the learned trial Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice...."

13. In the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN v.

KISTOORA RAM reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE 684, at

paragraph 8 of the judgment it is held as under:

"8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:45790

permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all."

14. In the case of MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF

MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2016) 10 SCC 220, at

paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is observed thus:

"12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a competent court after a full-fledged trial, and once the trial court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on the appellate court while dealing with the appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the power of the appellate court to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon which the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a conclusion."

15. I have carefully examined the materials placed

before this Court. To prove the guilt of the accused, the

prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-10, 11 documents were

marked as EX-P1 to P11. It is the case of the prosecution that

all the accused having common object, trespassed into the

house of PW-1 and also broke the glasses and windows and

caused damages to the house of PW-1. In this regard, the

prosecution has produced the documents Ex-P4 - Assessment

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC:45790

Extract pertaining to the house No.725 Assessment No.585,

which belongs to Smt. Kaveri W/o. Bangara. The said Kaveri

W/o. Bangara was examined as PW-6. This witness has partly

supported to the cases of the prosecution and partly hostile.

She has not deposed in her evidence that the PW-1 was

residing in her house. The prosecution has not explained as to

on what capacity the PW-1 was residing in the house bearing

No.725, Assessment No.585. Even in the Ex-P2 - Spot Mahazar,

the Investigating Officer has not disclosed as to the door

number and also assessment number. Investigation Officer has

not explained anything in this regard. In the absence of

material piece of evidence, it is not possible to come to the

conclusion that PW-1 is the owner of the house in question.

Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the

accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections

448 and 427 read with Section 149 of the IPC. With regard to

the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354 and 324 read

with Section 149 are concerned, it the case of the prosecution

that accused Nos.1 to 3 dragged PW-1 and outraged her

modesty and accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted PW-1 - Smt.

Rukmini on her chest, face and kicked her and accused No.3

- 12 -

NC: 2023:KHC:45790

caused hurt to the hand of PW-1 by means of knife and also

abused PW-1 in filthy language by referring her caste and also

giving life threat, thereby causing criminal intimidation to PW-

1. In this regard, PW-1 - Smt. Rukmini has deposed in her

evidence that the accused No.2 - Nandakumar has assaulted to

her with hands and stabbed her near right elbow. Accused

Promod and Nandakumar dragged her from the house and also

abused her by referring her caste. Ex-P6 is the wound

certificate of PW-1 - Rukmini. It reveals that the Rukmini came

to the hospital on 16.05.2013 at 8.30 a.m. with history of

assault by Nandakumar, Pramod, Sandesh, Raghu and

Sampath by hands and Medical Officer has found the following

injuries:

1. Multiple linear abrasions over right forearm.

2. C/o chest pain and abdominal pain.

16. Doctor has observed that injury Nos.1 and 2 are

simple in nature. If the accused Nandakumar has stabbed on

her right forearm, she would have sustained from stab injury,

but no stab injury is found by the Medical Officer as per the

wound certificate. Except abrasions no injuries is caused to

PW-1. Even PW-1 has not stated before the Medical Officer