Karnataka High Court

Yankappa S/O Basappa Vadaratti vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 January, 2025

                                                   -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB
                                                           CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                               DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025
                                                 PRESENT
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
                                                   AND
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100209 OF 2020

                      BETWEEN:


                           YANKAPPA S/O BASAPPA VADARATTI
                           AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                           R/O: KALATIPPI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
                           DIST: BAGALKOTE.

                                                                        ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. S C BHUTI, ADV)


                      AND:
                      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY PSI,
                           TERDAL PS, REPRESENTED BY
                           STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed by        HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
Location: High
                      2.   PRAKASH S/O SIDDAPPA VADARATTI
Court of                   AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC:
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
                      3.   ALLAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA VADARATTI
                           AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC:

                      4.   ASHOK S/O SIDDAPPA VADARATTI
                           AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC:

                      5.   SIDDAPPA S/O VITTAL VADARATTI
                           AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

                      6.   PUNDALIK S/O VITTAL VADARATTI
                           AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

                      7.   BASAPPA S/O PUNDALIK VADARATTI
                              -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB
                                   CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020




     AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: SECRETARY HALU
     UTPADKAR SANGHA,

8.   VITTAL S/O BHIMAPPA VADARATTI
     AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

9.   UDDAPPA S/O VITTAL VADARATTI
     AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O: KALATHIPPI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI.

10. BEERAPPA S/O UDDAPPA VADARATTI
    AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS

11. SHIVANAND S/O BHIMAPPA VADARATTI
    AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,

12. BHIMAPPA S/O VITTAL VADARATTI
    AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

13. KAREPPA S/O UDDAPPA VADARATTI
    AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

14. MARUTI PUNDALIK VADARATTI
    AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

     RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 14 ARE
     R/O: KALATHIPPI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI.

                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1.
SRI. A.L SANDRIMANI & SRI. SANTOSH B RAWOOT,
ADVS FOR R2 TO R14)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 372 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN SESSIONS CASE
NO.39/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT TO SIT AT JAMKHANDI AND ALLOW
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT TO SIT AT JAMKHANDI AT
JAMKHANDI IN SESSIONS CASE NO.39/2018 DATED 06/05/2020
AND THEREBY CONVICT THE ACCUSED / RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 14
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148,
                                   -3-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB
                                         CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020




323, 324, 114, 354, 307, 504, 506 R/W SEC.149 INDIAN PENAL
CODE.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
                                   AND
                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

                        ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

This Criminal appeal is filed by the complainant under

Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging

the judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.05.2020

passed in S.C. No.39/2018 by the learned I Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at

Jamkhandi.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this

appeal are as under:

It is the case of the prosecution that, the

complainant and the accused are distant relatives. On

07.04.2015, in the afternoon at Kalatippi village, the

complainant, after cutting sugarcane, was transporting the

same in the tractor on the cart track, situated between the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

land of the complainant and accused No.4, at that time,

the maize grown in the land of the accused No.5 was

damaged. At about 6:00pm, the accused persons formed

an unlawful assembly, with a common object, by holding

clubs in their hands, and scolded the complainant in filthy

language, questioning him as to why he had destroyed the

maize crops and accused No.1 with a motive to take away

the life of the complainant, assaulted the complainant with

the club on his head. Due to which, the complainant

sustained grievous injury. When the nephew of the

complainant and others intervened, the accused persons

assaulted them with the club. When the wife of the

complainant intervened, the accused persons outraged her

modesty by catching and pulling her hand and assaulted

by kicking on her abdomen. Accused Nos.5 and 11 abetted

the other accused persons by telling them, not to leave

them. Accused Nos.7 to 10, 12 and 13 abetted to finish

them. The complainant lodged a complaint before the

Terdal Police Station. The police have registered a case in

Crime No.34/2015 for the offense punishable under

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 114, 354, 341,

504, and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal

Code. The Investigating officer, after investigation, filed a

charge-sheet against the accused for the offences

mentioned above.

3. The trial Court framed the charges against the

accused on 25.10.2018. The accused pleaded not guilty.

4. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses as

PWs.1 to 13 and marked 14 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-14

and one material object as M.O.1.

5. The trial Court recorded the statement of the

accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 19.03.2020. The

accused have denied the entire case of the prosecution.

The trial Court considered the entire material on record

and passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

6. The complainant, aggrieved by the impugned

judgment and order of acquittal, has filed this appeal.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

7. Heard the learned counsel for the

appellant/complainant learned counsel for the accused,

and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant

submits that, the trial Court failed to consider the oral and

documentary evidence placed on record by the

prosecution. He submits that, the Doctors have issued

wound certificates, which reflect that the complainant has

sustained injuries, and the said injuries have been caused

by the weapon used by the accused. He submits that, the

accused had voluntarily caused bodily injury to the

complainant and his family members by assaulting with

their hands and clubs and thereby committed the offences.

He submits that, the complainant has clearly deposed in

his evidence that accused No.1 assaulted the complainant

on the head and accused Nos.4 and 8 have assaulted and

pushed the wife of the complainant and threatened them

with dire consequences of life threat. He submits that, the

trial Court, merely on the ground, that there is a case and

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

counter case against each other, has passed the impugned

judgment of acquittal without examining, as to who is the

aggressor. He submits that, the trial Court has committed

an error in passing the impugned judgment. The

impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is arbitrary

and erroneous. With these grounds, he prays to allow the

appeal.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused

submits that, the complainant has lodged a false criminal

case against the accused persons. He submits that, the

complainant tried to steal the maize crops, and he fell and

sustained injuries. He submits that, the accused have not

assaulted the complainant and his family members as

contended by the prosecution. He submits that, there is a

case and counter case between the complainant and his

family members, and the accused persons, and he submits

that, the prosecution has not proved that, the accused

persons had an intention to take away the life of the

complainant i.e., PW-1 and there is no evidence to that

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

effect. He submits that, the witnesses, who supported the

case of the prosecution are interested witnesses. Hence,

on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

10. Perused the records, and considered the

submission of the learned counsel for the parties.

11. The points, that arise for our consideration are:

(i) Whether the judgment and order of acquittal passed in S.C. No.39/2018 by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 148, 323, 324, 114, 354, 307, 506 and 504 read with Section 149 of IPC is based on proper appreciation of evidence and as such, is liable to be sustained?

(ii) What order? "

12. Point (i): The learned Sessions Judge has

charged the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147 148, 323, 324, 307, 114, 354, 341,

506, and 504 read with Section 149 of IPC. Based on the

charge-sheet material, the learned Sessions Judge has

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

framed the charge on 25.10.2018. A plain reading of the

charge framed against the accused is that:

"The accused with an intention to take away the life of the complainant, accused No.1 assaulted on the head of the complainant and the accused persons have formed unlawful assembly by holding clubs in their hands and scolded the complainant in filthy language. The complainant came to the police station and lodged the complaint and on the strength of the complaint, a case came to be registered against the accused persons in Crime No.34/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 148, 323, 324, 307, 114, 354, 341, 506 and 504 read with Section 149 of IPC."

13. The prosecution examined the complainant as

PW.1, who has deposed that, the accused are his relatives

and about 5 years back, he was moving with a tractor and

it caused damage to the crops of accused No.3. He was

ready and willing to pay the accused to rectify the

damage, however, the accused assaulted him by hitting on

his head. Accused No.5 assaulted his brother and also

outraged the modesty of his wife by pulling her hand. The

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

complainant-PW.1 lodged the complaint-Ex.P.1. During

the cross-examination, it was suggested to PW.1 that

while stealing maize crops, complainant fell and got

injured and there was no dispute between the accused and

PW.1 and his family members. The said suggestions were

denied by PW.1.

PW.2 is a pancha. He has deposed that the police

have called him for drawing panchanama. PW.2 deposed

that he knows CW-4-Mahadeva Reddy i.e. PW.3 and

CW.11-Hanamant Siddappa Vadaratti i.e., PW.8. Ex.P-2

was confronted to PW.2 and his signature is marked as

Ex.P-2(a). During the cross-examination, it was

suggested to PW.2 that he has no full knowledge of

panchanama drawn as per Ex.P-2. The said suggestion

was denied.

PW.3-CW.4 i.e. one Mahadev Reddy. He has

deposed that, he knows PW.8-CW.11. Photograph was

confronted to him. He has stated that, he is seen in the

photograph and the said photograph is marked as Ex.P-3

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

and in the said photograph, PW.8 (CW.11) is also seen

and he identified his thumb impression on the photograph

and the said panchanama was drawn five years back. He

has deposed that, he did not know why the police had

called him and at that time it was about 2.00 pm. It was

suggested to PW.3 that, without knowing the contents of

Ex.P-2, he had affixed his thumb impression on Ex.P-2.

PW.4 is one Anand Vadaratti. He has deposed that

about five years back at 4:00 pm, when he was carrying

sugarcane in a tractor some portion of maize crop grown

in the land of the accused got destroyed and at about

6:00 pm the accused started questioning them by using

filthy words. The accused hit the complainant-PW.1 with

wooden club and assaulted PW.1 and kicked on the

stomach of PW.9. Accused No.9 was holding him and

accused Nos.3 to 10 were assaulting the him with their

hands and others were giving life threats. In the course of

cross-examination, he denied that there is no path

way/road to their land and it was suggested that, the

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

complainant was stealing the maize crop and he was

caught. The said suggestion was denied and further, it is

suggested that, the complainant tried to steal the maize

crop from the land of the accused and fell. The said

suggestion was denied.

PW.5 is one Pundaleek. He has deposed that the

accused assaulted him and he sustained injuries. He

identified M.O.1 and he has deposed that the Police took

him to the Government Hospital.

PW.6 is one Shankar Vadaratti. He has deposed

that, about 5 years back, at about, 6:30 pm, the accused

were quarreling with the complainant and accused No.1 hit

the complainant and accused No.2 hit PW.5 on his head,

and other accused have threatened with life. In the cross-

examination, he has deposed that said incident took place

in Sy.No.57, and the said land belongs to the accused. It

was suggested to PW.6 that, while stealing maize crops

they fell and got injured. The said suggestion was denied.

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

PW-7 is Ganapati Vadaratti. He has deposed that,

about 4 to 5 years back at 6'O clock, the complainant was

carrying sugarcane in the tractor and the driver of the

tractor caused damage to the maize crop grown in the

land of the accused.

PW-8 is one Hanamant Vadaratti. He has deposed

that, he has not seen Galata between the accused and the

complainant and he has deposed that, he has not given

any statement before the police. Ex.P-3 was confronted to

PW.8. He has stated that, he is seen in the photograph

i.e. Ex.P.3. This witness has turned hostile, and he was

cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor.

PW.9 is Smt.Suvarna, who is the wife of the

complainant. She has deposed that about 5 years back at

4:00 pm they had cut the sugarcane and loaded it in the

tractor. At that time, the accused came to the land and

started quarreling with the complainant, and accused No.2

hit PW.9, accused No.4, and accused No.8 pulled her and

kicked her on the stomach and the complainant was

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

bleeding. She has deposed that, she gave a statement

before the Magistrate under Section 164 of The Code of

Criminal Procedure, and her statement is marked as

Ex.P.5.

PW.10 is one Sri. Mallappa. He has deposed that, he

was working as a constable in the Terdal Police Station

from 2014 till 28.05.2015. On 08.04.2015, he was in the

Police Station. At 3:00 pm he received an information

from the private hospital and he proceeded to the hospital

and he saw that the complainant had sustained injuries

and a complaint was drafted through Ningapa i.e. CW.10,

and after returning to the Police Station, he registered a

crime in FIR No.34/2015 and he forwarded a copy of the

FIR to the Court. The complaint was confronted to him

and he identified the signature of the complainant as

Ex.P1(a) and further the First Information Report was

confronted to him and it is marked as Ex.P-6 and his

signature is marked as Ex.P-6(a) and on the same day,

the accused was produced before him and he has prepared

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

a report as per Ex.P-7 and his signature was marked as

Ex.P-7(a) and the accused have admitted that they have

committed an offence and accordingly, he has filed a

charge-sheet. During the cross-examination, it was

elicited that, in Panchanama, he had not mentioned the

survey number and that Padma Hospital is situated beside

the police station. He admits that, he has not mentioned

the registration number of the tractor. It is elicited that,

he is unable to say that, in which survey number

panchanama was drawn. It was suggested that, to help

the complainant, he has lodged a false complaint and filed

a charge-sheet. He has denied the said suggestion.

PW.11 is Doctor-Vishalakshi. She has deposed that,

on 07.04.2015 at about 8:00 pm the complainant came to

the hospital and took treatment and he had suffered an

injury, and a wound certificate was issued as per Ex.P-9. It

was elicited that the said injury may be caused due to fall

on the hard surface.

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

PW.12 is Doctor Mahaveer Danigond. He has

deposed that, he treated the complainant on 07.04.2015

at 9:45 pm and he had issued the wound certificate as per

Exs.P-12 and P-13. It is elicited that, the said injury may

be sustained due to a fall on a hard surface.

PW-13 is the Investigating Officer, who has stated

that, he has worked as a Police Inspector in Terdal Police

Station from September 2013 till August 2016 and he took

up the investigation on 26.06.2015. He has deposed that,

PWs.1, 5 and PW-9-Suvarna had sustained injuries. He

has collected the wound certificates from the Doctor

marked as Exs.P-12 to P-14. He has deposed that, on

17.07.2015, he has collected the wound certificates of

CWs.1 and 5 from the Government Hospital and the said

wound certificates are marked as Exs.P-9 to P-10, and his

signature is marked as Exs.P-9(b) and P-10(b). He had

seized 3 wooden clubs and were sent to the hospital, and

he had collected the opinion/report, which is marked as

Ex.P-11 and his signature is marked as Ex.P-11(b). It is

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

elicited that, he has not seized the tractor. He has not

seized the articles loaded in the tractor and he has not

collected the Record of Rights about the land in which the

alleged incident took place. He pleads ignorance that the

said land is an irrigated land and pleads ignorance that

near Mahalingapura road, there is a canal and from the

said canal, which passes through the land of the accused,

the accused are drawing water and cultivating their land.

14. From the perusal of the records, it discloses

that the accused had also lodged a complaint against the

complainant herein. PW.2 and 3 are the witnesses to the

mahazar and they have not supported the case of the

prosecution. PW-8 is the son of the senior uncle of PW.1

and he has not supported the case of the Prosecution.

PWs.1 and 4 to 7 are interested witnesses and none of

the witnesses have stated that the accused persons

assaulted PW.1 to take away his life. Initially, a case was

registered against accused persons for an offence

punishable under Section 326 of IPC for having caused the

- 18 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

grievous injury but as per the wound certificate, marked

as Ex.P-9, which discloses that PW.1 had sustained a

simple injury and hence, the charge under Section 326 of

IPC was deleted.

15. From the perusal of the entire evidence of the

prosecution, none of the witnesses have deposed that the

accused persons have used a sharp object to assault

PW.1, intending to commit murder of the complainant. It

is well-established principle that, in a case and counter

case, in the final report of both cases, the Investigating

Officer has to necessarily furnish all the documents

pertaining to the other case and should explain the

genesis of the incident explaining whether it is a free fight

between two persons/groups and that both are

aggressors. The Investigating Officer should state

whether one of the groups/persons is an aggressor and

that whether the other has caused injuries in exercise of

the right of private defence.

- 19 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

16. From the perusal of the evidence of PW.13, it

does not disclose which group is an aggressor.

17. Learned counsel for the complainant submits

that, the accused had lodged a complaint against the

complainant and a criminal case was registered against

the complainant and the said criminal case was ended in

acquittal.

18. From the perusal of the records produced by

the prosecution, the trial Court has come to the conclusion

that the complainant and his witnesses, while committing

theft of maize crop in their land, fell and sustained

injuries. There is no worn in the defence of the accused

persons. Further, what is to be considered here is, that

there is a case and counter case between the complainant

and his family members and the accused persons. There

was no intention on the part of the accused persons to

take away the life of PW.1 and there is no evidence to that

effect. The witnesses, who have supported the case of the

- 20 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

prosecution, are all related witnesses and PW.2 is the

brother of PW.1 and he has turned hostile, and further,

the case was not registered on the date of the incident.

Hence, it creates a doubt about the occurrence of the

incident. The trial Court has recorded a finding that the

prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused

persons beyond all reasonable doubt.

18. It is a settled principle of law that when the trial

Court has come to the conclusion that the evidence of the

injured witnesses, having sufficient reason to have a

grudge against the accused in connection with the civil

dispute, it is not sufficient enough to base the guilt of the

accused, it would not be proper for the Appellate Court to

interfere with the case. It is also relevant to note that the

accused will have a presumption of innocence and it is for

the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond

such reasonable doubt. When the accused have a verdict

of acquittal in their favour by the trial Court, which had

the advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses

- 21 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

and the manner in which they depose before the Court,

the presumption of innocence against the accused gets

fortified and as such, the Appellate Court should be too

cautious while interfering in the same. This principle has

been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in several of its

decisions and a chronicle of all those decisions has been

reiterated and referred to in a recent judgment in the case

of Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT, Delhi) and

Another1. Referring to the decision in the case of

Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala2 it was held, at para 8, as

below:

"8. Before venturing into the merits of the case, we would like to reiterate the scope of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') while deciding an appeal by the High Court, as the position of law is rather settled. We would like to quote the relevant portion of a recent judgment of this Court in Jafarudheen and Others v. State of Kerala (2022 SCC Online SC 495) as follows:

"25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial

(2022) 8 SCC 536

(2022) 8 SCC 440

- 22 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters".

Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also reiterated its

earlier observations in the case of Mohan @ Srinivas @

Seena @ Tailor Seena v. State of Karnataka reported in

2021 SCC Online SC 1233 and at paras 20, 21, 22 of the said

decision, it was held as below:

"20. Section 378 CrPC enables the State to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal. Section 384 CrPC speaks of the powers that can be exercised by the Appellate Court. When the trial court renders its decision by acquitting the accused, presumption of innocence gathers strength before the Appellate Court. As a consequence, the onus on the prosecution becomes more burdensome as there is a double presumption of innocence. Certainly, the Court of first instance has its own advantages in

- 23 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

delivering its verdict, which is to see the witnesses in person while they depose. The Appellate Court is expected to involve itself in a deeper, studied scrutiny of not only the evidence before it, but is duty bound to satisfy itself whether the decision of the trial court is both possible and plausible view. When two views are possible, the one taken by the trial court in a case of acquittal is to be followed on the touchstone of liberty along with the advantage of having seen the witnesses. Article 21 of the Constitution of India also aids the accused after acquittal in a certain way, though not absolute. Suffice it is to state that the Appellate Court shall remind itself of the role required to play, while dealing with a case of an acquittal.

21. Every case has its own journey towards the truth and it is the Court's role undertake. Truth has to be found on the basis of evidence available before it. There is no room for subjectivity, nor the nature of offence affects its performance. We have a hierarchy of courts in dealing with cases. An Appellate Court shall not expect the trial court to act in a particular way depending upon the sensitivity of the case. Rather it should be appreciated if a trial court decides a case on its own merit despite its sensitivity.

22. At times, courts do have their constraints. We find, different decisions being made by different courts, namely, trial court on the one hand and the Appellate Courts on the other. If such decisions are made due to institutional constraints, they do not

- 24 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

augur well. The district judiciary is expected to be the foundational court, and therefore, should have the freedom of mind to decide a case on its own merit or else it might become a stereotyped one rendering conviction on a moral platform. Indictment and condemnation over a decision rendered, on considering all the materials placed before it, should be avoided. The Appellate Court is expected to maintain a degree of caution before making any remark.

Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed by

referring to the decision in the case of N. Vijayakumar v.

State of Tamilnadu reported in (2021) 3 SCC 687, wherein,

it was observed, at para 20, as below:

"20. Mainly it is contended by Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the view taken by the trial court is a "possible view", having regard to the evidence on record. It is submitted that the trial court has recorded cogent and valid reasons in support of its findings for acquittal. Under Section 378 CrPC, no differentiation is made between an appeal against acquittal and the appeal against conviction. By considering the long line of earlier cases this Court in the judgment in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, [(2007) 4 SCC 415] has laid down the general principles regarding the powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of

- 25 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

acquittal. Para 42 of the judgment which is relevant reads as under: (SCC p. 432)

"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

- 26 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

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."

Therefore, this double presumption which is available

in favour of the accused cannot be interfered with merely

because another view is possible. The Appellate Court

cannot interfere in a particular view adopted by the trial

Court in respect of the testimony of the witnesses, which

is based on the demeanor of the witnesses simply because

another view as contended by the complainant is also

possible.

- 27 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB

19. It is relevant to note that in matters involving a

case and a counter case, it is always desirable that, both

the cases are tried by the same court, to ascertain, who is

the aggressor in a scuffle involving two groups.

20. For the above said reasons and findings, we are

of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to

prove the guilt of the accused. The appeal deserves to be

rejected as being devoid of merits.

21. Accordingly, we answer point No.(i) in the

affirmative.

22. Point No.(ii): In view of the afore said

discussion, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal filed by the complainant under Section

372 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Consequently, the judgment

and order of acquittal dated 06.05.2020 passed in S.C.