Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Chandrakanth S/O Gemu Rathod on 24 February, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1257-DB
CRL.A No. 200114 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200114 OF 2016
(378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH BRAHMPUR POLICE STATION,
KALABURAGI.
RPTED. BY ITS ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP)
AND:
CHANDRAKANTH S/O GEMU RATHOD
Digitally signed AGE: 24 YEARS,
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI R/O MUGALANGAGAON THANDA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
NOW AT H.NO.B-64, ABL HOUSING SOCIETY,
KARNATAKA SHANTANAGAR, BHANKUR,
TQ: CHITTAPUR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. HEMA L KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378
(1) & (B) OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT &
ORDER DTD 15/3/16 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE, KALABURAGI, IN S.C. NO 192/12 THEREBY
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT-ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/SEC.S 448, 450, 307, 504, 506, 509, 366 OF IPC & 66,
66(A), (D),(F), 67, 67(A) OF I.T.ACT-2008.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1257-DB
CRL.A No. 200114 of 2016
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment
passed in S.C.No.192/2012 dated 15.03.2016 by the III
Additional Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to
as the 'learned Sessions Judge'), wherein, the learned Sessions
Judge acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 448, 450, 307, 504, 506, 509, 366 of the IPC and
Sections 66, 66(A), 66(D), 66(F), 67, 67(A) of the Information
Technology Act, 2008.
2. The abridged facts of the prosecution case are that:
The complainant Chaya-PW.3 was a B.Sc. Graduate and
additionally, had pursued C.T.T.C (Training course). The
accused-Chandrakanth became acquainted with the
complainant through her sister's friend named Sujatha-PW.7.
An alliance was proposed to the complainant. Following which,
on 10.01.2010 the accused, his mother, his maternal uncle and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1257-DB
his wife, his sister Kavitha, the mediator Sujatha and her
husband Jagadish visited the complainant's house and sought a
marriage proposal. Subsequently, when the family enquired
regarding the accused's disposition; they learnt of his accursed
behaviour. Hence the complainant's parents-PW.4 and PW.6
communicated their apprehension and unwillingness of getting
their daughter married to the accused. After one month of the
said incident, the accused visited the complainant's house at
about 11:30 p.m. and forced her to elope. When she refused,
he threatened and attempted to choke her neck by his hands.
Following which, the complainant squealed and upon hearing
this, her parents PWs.4 and 6 came to her rescue. Upon
witnessing the arrival of PWs.4 and 6 the accused withdrew his
hands from her neck and fled the spot. On a lapse of 7 to 8
months, once again the accused endeavoured to reestablish
contact with the complainant by sending her a message in filthy
language on her mobile bearing Nos.8095421143, 9620358161
and 7899430483. Against this backdrop, she lodged a
complaint at the Mahila Police Station, Kalaburagi and a
compromise was arrived at in the Police Station and the
accused wrote a hand written bond stating not to repeat the
same in the future. A week ahead of lodging the complaint, the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1257-DB
accused had messaged the complainant's brother that he had
uploaded his sister i.e., the complainant's photographs on
social media platforms like Gmail and Facebook and also stated
that the Police could do nothing in the matter. Hence, the
complainant-PW.3 lodged a complaint before the
appellant/Police against the accused as per Ex.P1 on
26.01.2011. The same came to be registered in Crime
No.16/2011 dated 26.01.2011, against the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 448, 450, 307, 504, 506
and 366 of the IPC and Sections 66 and 67 of the Information
Technology Act 2008. On completion of the investigation, the
Investigating Officer laid the chargesheet against the accused
for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 450, 307, 504,
506, 509 and 366 of IPC and Sections 66, 66(A), (D), (F), 67,
67(A) of the Information Technology Act 2008 before the
committal Court.
3. On committal of the case, the learned Sessions
Judge framed the charges against the accused for the
aforementioned offences and read it over verbatim to the
accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1257-DB
4. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses
as PW.1 to PW.16; marked 12 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12.
Upon concluding the trial, the learned Sessions Judge read over
the incriminating portion of the evidence of witnesses to the
accused under the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C and the
accused denied the same. Albeit, the accused chose to not
examine any witness on his favour, however, he got marked 12
documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D12. The defence of the accused is
one of total denial and that of false implication.
5. The Sessions Court after considering the evidence
on record, acquitted the accused for the charges levelled
against him. The said judgment of acquittal is challenged under
this appeal by the State.
6. We have heard the learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor Sri. Siddaling P. Patil for the complainant-State and
learned counsel Smt. Hema L. Kulakarni., for
respondent/accused, we have also perused the records made
available before us.
7. The primary contention of the learned Additional
SPP that the Sessions Court has grossly erred in acquitting the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1257-DB
accused/respondent despite the prosecution placing sufficient
evidence before the Sessions Court. He contended that the
evidence of PWs.2 to 6 and 16 coupled with the evidence of
PW.14 i.e., the close relatives of the deceased categorically
establishes the guilt of the accused. He submit that as per the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, when there is an
allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established,
mere statement that being relative of the deceased they are
likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to
discard their evidence. He further contended that the
complainant-PW.3 has clearly stated in her evidence that the
accused was unhappy with the rejection of alliance and came to
their house and insisted on the relationship and has also posted
and circulated the photos without her consent through internet
and Facebook and hence, he has committed the offences
charged, which has been corroborated by the evidence of
material witnesses. In spite of such materials, the learned
Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused without appreciating
the evidence and materials on record. With these submissions,
he prays to allow the appeal and to convict the accused for the
charges levelled against him.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1257-DB
8. Refuting the above submission, the learned counsel
for the respondents/accused submitted that the learned
Sessions Judge on duly appreciating the entire evidence on
record, passed a well-reasoned judgment which does not call
for any interference at the hands of this Court. She further
submitted that, there is an inordinate delay in lodging the
complaint by the complainant. The incident allegedly took place
at about 11:30 p.m. of February, 2010, the complainant
approached the Police on 26.01.2011, hence there is an
inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and the prosecution
failed to explain the reason for such inordinate delay in lodging
the complaint. She further contended that the prosecution has
failed to produce the medical evidence of the Doctor so as to
prove the injury sustained on the neck of the complainant at
the time of alleged murder attempt so also the mobile phones
of complainant and the accused secured by the Police along
with sim card. She also contended that, since this appeal is
against acquittal, as per the settled principle of law, if a
plausible view is taken by the Sessions Court, the Appellate
Court shall not interfere in the acquittal order. She also
contended that the entire case rests on the evidence of
interested witnesses and among them, the independent
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1257-DB
witnesses i.e., PWs.7 to 12 and PWs.12 and 13 the seizure
panchas so also PWs.1 and 2 the panch witnesses for spot
mahazar have turned hostile the prosecution case. In such
circumstances, the Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the
accused for the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, She
prays to dismiss the appeal.
9. We have given our anxious consideration both on
the argument advanced by the both the learned counsel for the
parties so also comprehensively perused the evidence on
record. The point that surface for our consideration is:
"Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified
in acquitting the accused/respondent for the
offences charged?"
10. As could be seen from the records, in order to prove
the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution has
predominantly relied the evidence of PW.3-complainant/victim.
On careful perusal of her evidence, she has reiterated the
contents of her complaint Ex.P1. However, as rightly contended
by the learned counsel for the respondent, there is an
inordinate delay of a year in lodging the complaint. Further, it is
her specific averment both in the complaint and in the evidence
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1257-DB
that the accused threatened her and made an attempt to
outrage her modesty by posting her photographs and obscene
messages, however the prosecution failed to place such call
detail registers (CDR) of the mobile pertaining to the accused
or the victim. Further, on perusal of Ex.P1 and her complaint,
there is no cogent and believable evidence to prove the aspect
that the accused made an attempt to commit her murder.
Admittedly, she has not sustained any injuries on her person.
The other material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution
case. The omnibus allegation made in the complaint reveals
that she had an ulterior motive to implicate the accused in the
crime for the reason that her marriage proposal was rejected
by the accused. In such circumstance, there arise a doubt in
the testimony of PW.3-complainant. The Sessions Court while
acquitting the accused, observed in paragraph No.16 as under:
"16. The prosecution case is based on only
evidences of interested witnesses of same family
member i.e., PW.3 complainant, PW.4 and 6 parents of
complainant, PW.5 younger brother and PW.16 elder
sister of complainant only they have supported the case
of prosecution. The entire case of prosecution is based
on evidences of interested witness and all most all
relevant witnesses to the case of prosecution are the
independent witnesses i.e., PW.7 Sujata, PW.8
Jagadish, PW.9 Kamalabai, PW.10 Vijayabai, PW.10
Rajesh have not supported to the case of prosecution.
The panch witnesses of spot panchanama PW.1 Raju
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1257-DB
and PW.2 Govind have turned hostile. The PW.12
Nadeem and PW.13 Md. Siddiqi are the seizure
panchas, they have not supported the case of
prosecution except the official witness is supported is
not helpful the case of prosecution. This court has
looked into the complaint, it is clear that the incident
took place at about 11-30 of February 2010 with regard
to attempt of murder, but the complainant has
approached the police on 26-01-2011. There is a delay
in lodging complaint which is unexplained and
moreover to prove attempt to murder U/Sec.307 of
Indian Penal Code. The medical evidence of doctor not
produced before the court. So as to prove the injury
sustained on the neck of complainant at the time of
attempt to murder and the mobiles of neither the
complainant nor the accused have secured by the police
with Sim card. Therefore call details given before the
court are not proved by producing proper and cogent
evidence. Therefore, there is nothing material to
appreciate the evidence of prosecution, except to hold
that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
guilt of accused. Therefore, the accused is entitled for
benefit of doubt, consequently he requires to be
acquitted. Hence, the points under consideration are
answered in the negative."
11. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence, we find
no such compelling reason to take a divergent view as that of
Sessions Court.
12. Nevertheless, this being an appeal against acquittal,
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.R.Sundara And
Others Vs. State Of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC
581, summarized the principles to exercise the power by the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1257-DB
Appellate Court to interfere in the order of the Sessions Court
in paragraph No.9 as under:
"9. Normally, when an Appellate Court exercises
appellate jurisdiction, the duty of the Appellate
Court is to find out whether the verdict which is
under challenge is correct or incorrect in law and on
facts. The Appellate Court normally ascertains
whether the decision under challenge is legal or
illegal. But while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal, the Appellate Court cannot examine the
impugned judgment only to find out whether the
view taken was correct or incorrect. After re-
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence,
the Appellate Court must first decide whether the
Trial Court's view was a possible view. The Appellate
Court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground
that after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the view
that the guilt of the accused was established beyond
a reasonable doubt. Only by recording such a
conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed
unless the Appellate Court also concludes that it was
the only possible conclusion. Thus, the Appellate
Court must see whether the view taken by the Trial
Court while acquitting an accused can be reasonably
taken on the basis of the evidence on record. If the
view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view, the
Appellate Court cannot interfere with the order of
acquittal on the ground that another view could
have been taken."
13. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Mallappa And Others v. State Of Karnataka reported in
(2024) 3 SCC 544 while summarizing the principles in dealing
with the appeal against acquittal in paragraph No.42 held as
under:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1257-DB
"42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based
on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as
guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values
of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of
justice. The principles which come into play 9 AIR 1961
SC 715 while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be
summarized as:
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a
criminal trial and such appreciation must be
comprehensive - inclusive of all evidence, oral or
documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may
result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a
ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds
that two views are possible, the one in favour of the
accused shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible
view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not
justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the
acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it
must specifically address all the reasons given by the
Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction,
the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality,
perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the
Trial Court."
14. Hence, on collocating the principles summarized in
the above judgment to the facts and circumstances of this
case, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1257-DB
failed to place sufficient evidence to prove the charges levelled
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
15. In that view of the matter, we decline to interfere in
the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. Accordingly, we
answer the point raised above in the affirmative and proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
CT: PS
