Karnataka High Court
Sri. Hanumantappa Bellikatti S/O ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No.100336/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF APRIL, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100336 OF 2021 (A)
BETWEEN:
SRI. HANUMANTAPPA BELLIKATTI
S/O. FAKKIRAPPA BELLIKATTI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT. KELAVARAKOPPA VILLAGE,
TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI 581120.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ S. SATANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
V N BADIGER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA, 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD BY ADUR PS,
REPRESENTED BY
SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTER,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
2. SHIVANAND S/O. MALLESHAPPA KODIHALLI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCU. AGRICULTURE,
3. RUDRAPPA S/O. MALLESHAPPA KODIHALLI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCU. AGRICULTURE,
4. BASAPPA @ BASAVANTAPPA
S/O. HANUMANTAPPA BADANNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCU. AGRICULTURE,
-2-
CRL.A No.100336/2021
5. PARASHURAM S/O. BASAPPA BADANNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCCU. AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O: KELEVERAKOPPA VILLAGE,
TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI- 581120.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1;
R1, R3 AND R5 SERVED;
R4-DEAD)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29.07.2021 PASSED BY
THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL JUDGE HAVERI IN SPL.S.C/S.T.C. NO.35/2017,
ALLOW THE APPEAL AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS AND
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 447, 427,
436, 504, 506, R/W. 34 IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(R) AND
3(2)(va) OF SC/ST ACT.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 28.03.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-3-
CRL.A No.100336/2021
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) Victim-Hanumanthappa Bellikatti-PW10, has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order of Acquittal dated 29th July 2021 passed in Spl. SC/ST No.35 of 2017 by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Haveri (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to with their status and rank before the trial court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shiggaon Sub-Division, Shiggaon, has submitted Charge-sheet against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 436, 504, 506, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short hereinafter referred to the "SC/ST (PoA) Act".)
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that the complainant and accused are residents of Kelavarakoppa Village. Prior to the present incident, there was another incident in which accused No.1 was illegally transporting kerosene and in that -4- CRL.A No.100336/2021 regard, Adur Police caught accused No.1 and conducted mahazar. At that time, the complainant in the present case and family members stood as witnesses and also signatories to the mahazar conducted by the police. In that regard, accused had enmity upon the complainant and his family members. On 6th March 2017, when the complainant and his wife were at the District Hospital, Haveri for treatment of complainant's wife along with their son CW6-Guddappa Bellikatti, the elder son of the complainant and his friend Ravi-CW7 gone to their land in Sy.No.120/03 to flow water to the field. At that time, accused 1 to 4, with criminal intention, have trespassed into the land of the complainant and set fire to the hut and Borewell, due to which, the hut and the agricultural implements like kunti, ranti and Noga and fertilizer & pesticides got completely burnt and thereby caused, loss by mischief. The same was being watched by CWs6 & 7 hiding in the bush nearby. On the next day, i.e. on 7th March 2017 at 8:30 am, when CW6 and daughter of the complainant CW8-Jayamma were at their house, accused 1 and 2 went near the house of the complainant and abused CW6 and 8 in filthy language, taking name of their caste in public, knowing fully well that they belong to Valmiki community and disrespected their caste and also threatened them stating that -5- CRL.A No.100336/2021 if CW6 were present at the spot, they would have burnt him alive. Thereby the accused committed the alleged offences.
5. After filing charge-sheet against the accused, cognizance was taken and case came to be registered in Crime No.84 of 2017 and after committal to the Sessions Court case in Spl.SC/ST No.35 of 2007 came to be registered. Upon hearing charges, the learned Special Judge framed charges against the accused for the commission of offence, punishable under Sections 447, 427, 436, 504, 506, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The same were read over to the accused in the language known to them. Accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the case, prosecution, in all, examined 15 witnesses as PWs1 to 15 and seventeen documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P17 and a small quantity of ash was marked as MO1. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused have totally denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them, but have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. -6- CRL.A No.100336/2021 Having heard the arguments on both sides, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused of the alleged offences. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, Hanumantha Bellikatti, son of the complainant, has preferred this appeal. State has not preferred appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal.
7. Sri Basavaraj S. Satannavar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is arbitrary illegal and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Though the trial court has appreciated the evidence adduced by the complainant but ignored the law and principles laid down by this court in a catena of cases. The decision of the court below is contrary to the facts of the case and is without any weight of evidence. The trial Court failed to appreciate the reasons for delay in filing the complaint. The trial Court has also erred in appreciating the evidence placed by the prosecution in its proper perspective. On all these grounds, it was sought to allow the appeal.
8. On the other hand, Sri Ashok T. Kattimani, learned Additional Government Advocate Counsel appearing for the -7- CRL.A No.100336/2021 respondent-No.1 State supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and submitted that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence placed before it and has passed the impugned judgment of acquittal. There is no ground to interfere with the same and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 and on perusal of materials on record, the following points arise for our consideration:
(1) Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from legal infirmities requiring this Court to intercede?
(2) What order?
10. Our answer to the above points would be:
Point No.1: in the negative;
Point No.2: as per final order Regarding Point No.1:
11. Before adverting to the actual facts of the case and appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to refer the dictum of -8- CRL.A No.100336/2021 Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope and power of Appellate Court in appeal against the order of acquittal.
12. 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, 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 -9- CRL.A No.100336/2021 phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
13. 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
- 10 -CRL.A No.100336/2021
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. ..."
14. 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 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
- 11 -CRL.A No.100336/2021
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...."
15. 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 permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction
- 12 -CRL.A No.100336/2021
to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all."
16. 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."
17. We have examined the materials place before the court. The Investigating Officer has cited 21 witnesses in the charge-sheet. Out of them, fifteen witnesses have been examined as PWs1 to 15 and 17 documents have been marked as Exhibits P1 to 17 and the material object, i.e. a small quantity of ash, marked as MO1. It is the case of the
- 13 -
CRL.A No.100336/2021prosecution that prior to the present incident, there was another incident in which accused No.1 was caught by Adur Police while the complainant was illegally transporting kerosene and in that regard police conducted mahazar and at that time, the complainant in the present case and family members of the accused stood as witnesses and also signatories to the mahazar conducted by the police. In that regard, accused had enmity upon the complainant and his family members. On 6th March 2017, when the complainant and his wife were in the District Hospital at Haveri for treatment of complainant's wife along with their son CW6-Guddappa Bellikatti, the elder son of the complainant and his friend Ravi-CW7 gone to their land to flow water to the field. At that time, accused 1 to 4 trespassed into the land of the complainant and set fire to the hut and Borewell, due to which, the hut and the agricultural implements kunti, ranti and Noga and fertiliser, pesticides kept in the hut got completely burnt and thereby caused loss. The said act was being watched by CWs6 & 7 hiding in the bush nearby. On the next day i.e. on 7th March 2017 morning when CW6 and daughter of the complainant CW8-Jayamma were at their house, accused 1 and 2 went near the house of the complainant and abused CWs6 and 8 in filthy language, taking
- 14 -
CRL.A No.100336/2021name of their caste in public, knowing fully well that they belong to Valmiki community and disrespected their caste and also threatened them stating that if CW6 were present at the spot, they would have burnt him alive. Thereby, accused committed alleged offences.
18. PW1-complainant Fakirappa Veerabharappa Bellikatti, has deposed in his evidence that CWs6, 8 to 10 are son, daughter-in-law, another son and wife respectively. They belong to Hindu Valmiki caste, accused 1 and 2 belong to Lingayat caste and accused 3 & 4 belong to Talwar community. He has deposed that in Sy.No.120/3 of Kelavarakoppa village, he has one acre of land which has a borewell and there is also a hut in the said land to keep agriculture implements, etc. He has submitted that his wife was admitted to hospital at Haveri and he and his son were in the hospital to look after his wife. On 06th March, 2017 at about 10:30 pm, CW6-his elder son was in the land to flow water from borewell. Accused 1 to 4 came to their land between 10.30 and 11.00 pm. Accused No.4 came in bike and accused 1 to 3 came in a car. Accused were holding weapons like sickle and kunti. CW6 and others, in fear, were hiding in the nearby bush. Accused set fire to their hut and to the borewell and caused loss worth of ₹1,50,000/-. CW6
- 15 -
CRL.A No.100336/2021informed the same to them while they were in hospital at Haveri. On the next day, i.e. on 07th March, 2017, accused again came to the house of the complainant and abused them in filthy language by taking the name of their caste and also threatened that they will kill them. The next day when they came back from Haveri, they were informed by the elders of the village who assured to hold panchayat. Accused did not heed to the advice of the elders of the village. Hence, the complainant lodged complaint with the Police as per Exhibit P1.
19. CW2-Shivakumar Doddalingannavar said to be attester to spot Panchama-Exhibit P3, has not supported the case of prosecution.
20. CW3-Guddappa Bellakatti and CW4-Ravi Doddalingannavar said to be the witnesses to the incident who are examined as PWs3 and 4 have deposed in their evidence that CWs1, 8, 9 and 10 are father, wife, younger brother and mother, respectively. They belong to Valmiki caste. Accused 1 & 2 belong to Lingayat community and accused 3 & 4 also belong to Valmiki caste. They have land measuring one acre situated in Sy.No.120/03 of Kelvarakoppa and in the said land there is a Borewell and one hut to keep agriculture implements
- 16 -
CRL.A No.100336/2021and other things. One month prior to the incident, accused number one was transporting, kerosene illegally and he and CW1 & 9 caught him and were handed over to Adur police. In this regard, accused 1 to 4 were waiting for a chance to take revenge against them. Accordingly, on 6th March 2017, when CWs9 & 10 were in District Hospital at Haveri, and when their elder son-CW6 went to the land to flow water, between 10.30 and 11.00 pm, accused 1 to 4 came to the land in bike and car and started abusing them by taking name of their caste. They were hiding in the nearby bush and were observing the accused with the help of a battery. They saw that accused set fire to the hut and Borewell, and as a result, the agriculture implements and other furniture kept in the hut were completely burnt thereby caused a loss of ₹1,50,000/-. Then he informed the same to CW9 over phone on the next day at about 8.30 hours when he was in the House of CW8, accused No.1 came there and started abusing them in filthy language and also threatened them with their consequences. Again, he informed the same to CW9 over phone. They informed him that CWs11 to 14 have advised to hold Panchayat to settle the matter, however, accused did not heed to the said advice, and
- 17 -
CRL.A No.100336/2021accordingly, he lodged complaint before the police as per Exhibit P3.
21. CW8-Jayamma Bellikatti is examined as PW5. Though this witness is said to be the eyewitness, she has deposed in her evidence that it is CW6 who has narrated the incident to her and accordingly, she has deposed as to the incident. She is the daughter-in-law of CW1 and wife of CW6.
22. CWs4 & 5 said to be the attesters to seizure, mahazar of motorcycle examined as PW6 and PW7. They have not supported the case of prosecution. CW3 said to be the attester to spot mahazar who is examined as PW8. He has reposed as the major conducted by the police as per Exhibit P3.
23. CW11-Guddappa Ramappa Thiluvalli, CW13 Basappa Mathalli, CW-14 Rudrappa who are said to have tried to compromise the matter are examined as PWs11 to 13 respectively. These witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. Even in their cross-examination by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, they have categorically denied as to the statement said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure which are marked as Exhibits P 10 to 13.
- 18 -
CRL.A No.100336/2021
24. CW9-Hanumanthappa Bellikatti, a hearsay witness, examined as PW10. He has narrated the incident as per the say of the complainant.
25. CW20-Prakash Devagiri, CW21-Laxman Shirolkar are Investigating Officers examined as PWs14 &d 15. They have deposed as to their respective investigations.
26. Upon a meticulous examination of the entire body of evidence presented before the Court, it becomes evident that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 06th March 2017, whereas the complaint was lodged only on 02nd April 2017 at approximately 20:30 hours, reflecting a considerable delay of 27 days in initiating legal action. According to Exhibit P2, the First Information Report (FIR), the stated reason for this inordinate delay is that certain village elders had advised both the complainant and the accused to amicably resolve their dispute. It is only when the accused allegedly failed to abide by such advice that the complainant proceeded to file the formal complaint belatedly.
27. In support of this explanation, PW1 reiterated the same version in his deposition before the Court. However, neither in the written complaint (Exhibit P1) nor in his oral
- 19 -
CRL.A No.100336/2021testimony has PW1 revealed the identities of the so-called Panchayatdars who purportedly mediated between the parties. Interestingly, individuals who are claimed to have acted as such Panchayatdars were examined as PWs 11-13. Contrary to the prosecution's case, these witnesses did not corroborate the prosecution's version. Even under cross-examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, no incriminating or supportive statements could be extracted from these witnesses to bolster the prosecution's narrative regarding the delay.
28. Had there truly been such intervention by the Panchayatdars, the complainant, in the normal course of events, would have disclosed their names in the initial complaint itself. The omission to do so seriously undermines the credibility of the explanation given for the delay. The unexplained and abnormal delay of 27 days in filing the complaint casts serious doubts on the veracity of the prosecution's case and the occurrence of the alleged incident at the stated point in time.
29. The prosecution further claims that the disputed property bearing Survey No. 120/3 of Kelavarakoppa Village measuring one acre belongs to PW1, and that both
- 20 -
CRL.A No.100336/2021a borewell and a hut are located on said land. In support of ownership and land features, the prosecution has submitted Exhibit P5, an RTC (Record of Rights, Tenancy and Crops) extract for the year 2016-17. However, this RTC fails to mention the presence of either a hut or a borewell. The land is also described as dry land, and notably, there is no reference to any water source being available on it. Ordinarily, if a borewell did exist on the land, such a crucial feature would have been recorded by the revenue authorities in the RTC.
30. Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to offer any explanation for this omission. The Investigating Officer has also not addressed this discrepancy or provided any independent material to establish the existence of a borewell or a hut on the land in question. In addition, Exhibit P17, a letter issued by the Section Officer of HESCOM, Tiluvalli, addressed to the Sub- Inspector of Shiggaon, clearly states that there is no electricity connection provided to any borewell on the land in Survey No. 120/3.
31. Given that no credible evidence has been brought on record to prove the presence of either a borewell or a hut, and that the source of water remains unestablished, the claim
- 21 -
CRL.A No.100336/2021that the accused set fire to the borewell and the hut becomes highly doubtful and unsubstantiated. The failure of the Investigating Officer to adequately investigate or clarify these aspects further weakens the prosecution's case. Moreover, it is admitted that there was pre-existing enmity between accused 1 and 2 and the complainant party. Against this background, it is plausible that the complaint was filed with malicious intent, as an afterthought, and possibly motivated by revenge, especially in light of the significant delay in filing.
32. In relation to the alleged offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it is important to note that accused Nos. 3 and 4 also belong to the Valmiki community, which is recognized under the Scheduled Castes. Consequently, the aforesaid provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act would not be applicable to them. With respect to accused Nos. 1 and 2, the prosecution has failed to produce any credible evidence to attract the alleged offences under the said statutory provisions.
33. All the prosecution witnesses examined in this regard are either related to each other or are otherwise closely
- 22 -
CRL.A No.100336/2021associated with the complainant. Not a single independent witness has come forward to corroborate the allegations. The overall evidence of the prosecution is riddled with inconsistencies and lacks independent corroboration, especially in light of the unexplained and inordinate delay in filing the complaint. These circumstances cast a shadow of serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's claims.
34. Viewed from any possible angle, the prosecution has not produced any cogent, credible, coherent, or corroborative evidence that could convince the Court of the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court, upon a detailed appreciation of the material on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case. The judgment of acquittal is based on sound reasoning and legal principles, taking into account both factual and legal inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. Even upon re-evaluation, re-appreciation, and independent reconsideration of the evidence and in light of the judicial precedents cited, this Court finds no error, illegality, or perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is answered in the negative.
- 23 -
CRL.A No.100336/2021Regarding Point No.2:
35. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, we proceed to pause the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal dismissed;
ii) Judgment and order of Acquittal dated 29th July 2021 passed in Special SC/ST No.35 of 2017 by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Haveri, is confirmed.
iii) Registry to send the copy of this judgment along with trial court records to the concerned court.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn CT-CMU