Karnataka High Court
Shri.Madhukar S/O Huvappa Kugaji vs State Of Karnataka on 28 June, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100252 OF 2015
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100242 OF 2015
IN CRL.A NO.100252/2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMACHANDRAPPA HUVAPPA KUGAJI,
Digitally signed
by GIRIJA A
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
BYAHATTI
Location:
HIGHCOURT
R/O: GARLGUNJI VILLAGE, NOW AT NANDIHALLI
GIRIJA A
BYAHATTI
OF
KARNATAKA-
DHARWAD
VILLAGE, DHAMANEWADI, TQ: & DIST: BELAGAVI.
BENCH
Date:
2023.07.11
12:06:09
+0530 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUNIL KHOT FOR SRI.RAMACHANDRA A. MALI,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MADHUKAR HUVAPPA KUGAJI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. SRI. LAXMAN HUVAPPA KUGAJI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
3. SRI. SAGAR LAXMAN KUGAJI
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
NO. 1 TO 3 R/O: VITHOBA GALLI, GARLGUNJI,
TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. SRI. SOMANATH APPU GORAL,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC: EDUCATION,
R/O: GANEBAIL, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY BELAGAVI RURAL PS,
NOW REP. BY ITS SPP, HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR &
SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI. SUNIL G. KAKATKAR & SRI. GIRISH A. YADWAD,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 TO R4
SRI. V. M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R5)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 372 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ ORDER DTD:
30/10/2015 IN S.C. NO 67/2010 PASSED BY THE IX ADDL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN SO FAR AS IT
RELATES TO ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS NO. 1
TO 4 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 341, 323, 504 324,
506, AND 307 R/W SEC. 34 OF I.P.C AS THE SAME BEING
ERRONEOUS AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND CONVICT
AND SENTENCE THE ACCUSED / RESPONDENTS HEREIN FOR
THE OFFENCES LEVELED AGAINST THEM PUNISHABLE U/S 341,
323, 504, 324, 506 AND 307 R/W SEC. 34 OF I.P.C IN THE
ABOVE CASE AND ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
IN CRL.A NO.100242/2015
BETWEEN:
SHRI. MADHUKAR S/O. HUVAPPA KUGAJI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: VITHOBA GALLI, GARIGUINJI,
TALUKA: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR FOR
SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY BELAGAVI RURAL POLICE STATION,
REP. BY ADDITIONAL SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP).
---
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 372 (2) OF CR.P.C,
1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED IX ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, AT BELAGAVI IN
SESSIONS CASE NO.67/2010 DATED 30-10-2015, IN AS FAR
AS THE CONVICTION OF THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED NO. 1 FOR
VIOLATION OF SECTION 30 OF THE INDIAN ARMS ACT AND
ETC.,
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.05.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, VENKATESH
NAIK T. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. Criminal Appeal No.100252/2015 is preferred by the
appellant/complainant Sri. Ramachandrappa, being
aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as the 'the trial
Court', for brevity) in S.C.No.67/2010 dated
30.10.2015 acquitting accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504,
324, 506 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Criminal Appeal No.100242/2015 is filed by
appellant/accused No.1 - Madhukar, being aggrieved
by the judgment and order of conviction passed by
the IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in
S.C.No.67/2010 dated 30.10.2015, convicting
accused No.1 for the offence punishable under
Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Arms Act', for brevity) read with
Section 34 of the IPC.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
2. The complainant has three brothers, accused No.2 -
Laxman, accused No.1 - Madhukar and one Maruti.
Complainant is the owner of the land bearing survey
No.69/A, measuring 3 acres 29 guntas, situated at
Nandihalli and his younger brother is the owner of
the land bearing Survey No.69AB measuring 3 acres
8 guntas and both the lands are abutting to each
other. There was a land dispute between the
complainant and his brothers.
3. On 19.06.2009, at about 10.15 a.m., near Wakade
Wadda Devasthan at Nandihalli, accused Nos. 1 to 4
wrongfully restrained the complainant -
Ramachandra with their common object to insult him
and to cause hurt. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 tightly held
the complainant and assaulted him with hands and
legs, insulted him and abused him in filthy language,
thereby provoked him to commit breach of peace.
Accused No.4 assaulted the complainant with
bamboo stick on his back side, accused No.1 fired
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
with a single barrel gun at the complainant's leg with
an intention or knowledge and the said act of
accused No.1 had caused hurt to the complainant.
All the accused assaulted the complainant and made
criminal intimidation to finish his life, thereby
committed offences punishable under Sections 341,
323, 504, 324, 327 and 506 read with Section 34 of
the IPC.
4. Hence the complainant lodged the complaint (Ex.P1).
On the basis of the complaint, the SHO of Belagavi
Rural Police Station registered a case in Crime
No.150/2009 and submitted FIR to the Court. The
I.O. took investigation, recorded statement of
witnesses, visited the spot, conducted siezure
panchanama, collected all the material documents
and filed the charge sheet. After completion of
investigation, respondent police have filed charge
sheet for the aforementioned offences in
C.C.No.1501/2009. The said case has been
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
committed to the Court of Sessions and it was
numbered as S.C.No.67/2010. After securing the
presence of the accused, charge was prepared.
Since accused nos.1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried, case was posted for evidence.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution in all
examined 17 witnesses as PWs. 1 to 17, got marked
27 documents at Exs. P1 to P27 and material objects
at M.Os. 1 to 17, The defence got marked one
document at Ex.D1. After completion of the
evidence, statement of accused Nos.1 to 4 were
recorded by the trial Court as contemplated under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 have denied
the incriminating evidence appearing against them in
the prosecution evidence, but they did not lead any
defence evidence and the case of the accused is of
total denial.
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
6. The learned Sessions Judge, considering both oral
and documentary evidence on record, has framed the
following points for consideration:
1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that on 19.06.2009, at
10.15 a.m., near Wakade Wadda Devasthan,
at Nandihalli, within the limits of the
Belagavi Rural Police Station, in furtherance
of their common intention all the accused
wrongfully restrained the complainant
Ramachandra Huvappa Kugaji, with a
common object which was to insult, to cause
hurt and to commit his murder thereby the
accused have committed an offence
punishable u/s. 341 R/w section 34 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond
all reasonable doubt that on the above said
date, time and place and furtherance of their
common intention all the accused to restrain,
cause hurt to commit murder, the accused
No.2 and 3 tightly held the complainant and
assaulted him with the hands and legs and
thereby the accused have committed an
offence punishable u/s. 323 R/w. sec. 34 of
IPC?
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
3) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the above said date,
time and place in furtherance of their
common intention all the accused to restrain,
to insult, to cause hurt and to commit
murder intentionally insulted the
complainant Ramachandra stating that
"PÁAiÀÄgÉà ¥ÉÆzÀjZÁ vÀÄeÁå »¸ÁìZÁ d«ÄãÀ ªÀÄzsåÉ D¯Á, vÀįÁ
R¯Á¸ï PÀvÉÆÃð" and thereby gave provocation to
him intend or knowing it to be likely of such
provocation will cause the complainant to
break public peace or to commit any other
offence and thereby accused have
committed an offence punishable u/s. 504
R/w. section 34 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond
all reasonable doubt that on the above said
date, time and place and in furtherance of
their common intention all the accused to
restrain to insult to cause hurt, to commit
murder, the accused No.4 assaulted the
complainant with bamboo stick on his back
side and thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s. 324 R/w. section 34 of IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond
all reasonable doubt that on the above said
date, time and place and in furtherance of
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
their common intention, all the accused to
restrain, insult, cause hurt, and to commit
murder, the accused No.1 did and act of
firing once with single gun at the
complainant's legs with an intention or
knowledge and under such circumstances,
that by that act he had caused his death and
he would have been guilty of murder and
thereby committed an offence punishable
u/s. 307 R/w. sec. 34 of IPC?
6) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond
all reasonable doubt that on the above said
date, time and place the accused No.1 did an
act of firing once with single gun at the
complainant's legs and contravened the
conditions of license and thereby committed
an offence punishable u/s. 30 of the Indian
Arms Act?
7) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond
all reasonable doubt that on the above said
date, time and place the accused persons in
furtherance of their common intention to
insult, to cause hurt, to commit murder,
accused No.2 to 3 assaulted with hands and
legs, the accused No. 4 assaulted with
bamboo stick and accused No.1 fire pallets
once from the gun with intention to cause
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
and alarm to the complainant and they also
caused criminal intimidation to him with the
gun and thereby the accused have
committed offences punishable u/s. 506 R/w
34 of IPC?
7. Learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that the
prosecution has failed to prove that on 19.06.2019 at
01.15 am near Wakade Wadda Devasthan at
Nandihalli, all the accused wrongfully restrained the
complainant Ramachandra with a common object to
insult him and to cause injury and with an intention
to murder him, caused hurt with hands and legs,
assaulted the complainant with bamboo stick, and
accused No.1 fired once with single gun on the
complainant's leg, with an intention to commit his
murder, and all the accused made criminal
intimidation to eliminate the complainant. The
learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 4
for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,
504, 324, 307 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
However, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
accused No.1 for the offence punishable under
Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act. Aggrieved by he
judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the
complainant has preferred Crl.A.No.100252/2015
and aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed
by the trial Court, accused No.1 has preferred
Crl.A.No.100242/2015.
8. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/complainant, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant/accused No.1,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents and
learned Addl. SPP for the respondent-State.
GROUNDS IN CRL.A.NO.100252/2015
9. Sri. Sunil Khot, Learned counsel for the
complainant/appellant in Crl.A.No.100252/2015
submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the
accused is totally arbitrary, erroneous and contrary
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
the facts and law and the same is not sustainable
either in law or facts. The finding given and the
conclusion drawn by the trial Court to the effect that
the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt and there are
no material and cogent evidence to prove the guilt of
the accused, is totally arbitrary and illegal and not
sustainable in law. The counsel further submits that,
though the prosecution in all has relied upon the
evidence of 17 witnesses, 27 documents and 17
material objects, however, the trial Court looked
upon the entire evidence with suspicion and not
believed the same, on the ground that there was
quarrel and enmity between the complainant and
accused in respect of the family properties and there
was land dispute between the complainant and
accused Nos.1 to 4. On these grounds, the trial
Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its
case. Further, the trial Court has failed to appreciate
Exs. P10 and P11 to 15 - the wound certificates of
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
the injured complainant and the evidence of PW13-
doctor; The learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved
the evidence of PW13, on the ground that there are
contradictions regarding the injuries in the evidence
of PW1 and the Medical Officer and on this ground
alone, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
requires to be set aside. The counsel further submits
that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly
appreciated the oral evidence of PWs. 5, 6 and 7,
who have witnessed the incident and also supported
the case of the prosecution; The learned Sessions
Judge has discarded the evidence of independent
witnesses on the ground that PW5 has approached
the spot of incident after the incident, as her house is
situated at a distance of 3 kms from the place of
incident. The counsel further submits that the trial
Court has not properly understood and appreciated
the oral and documentary evidence placed by the
prosecution and thereby came to an erroneous
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
case against the respondents. The counsel further
submits that the trial Court has committed a serious
error in passing the judgment of acquittal. On these
grounds the complainant prayed to convict the
respondents/accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 and 307 read
with Section 34 of the IPC.
GROUNDS IN CRL.A.NO.100242/2015
10. Learned counsel for accused No.1/appeallant in
Crl.A.No.100242/2015 fairly argued and submitted
that the judgment and order of sentence passed by
the trial Court insofar as conviction of accused No.1
for violation of Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act, is
illegal, perverse and requires to be interfered with by
this Court; The trial Court failed to note that the
complainant has put up a false story and the same
cannot be believable as it is full of contradictions and
omission; The trial Court failed to note that the
prosecution has failed to examine even a single
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
independent eye witnesses to the case on hand; The
trial Court has failed to note that, at the place of
incident, there was a famous temple and more than
200 devotees would visit the temple in a day and
therefore, non-observation of any independent
witness is vital to the case of the prosecution; The
trial Court failed to note that the prosecution has
utterly failed in examining any witnesses, apart from
self-serving testimony of the complainant to prove
the presence of accused Nos. 2 to 4 at the place of
incident; Further, the trial Court has not considered
the aspect that the complainant himself has served
in the military for more than 20 years and he has the
knowledge about the use of sickle and capable of
defending himself against any assault; But the trial
Court failed to consider this aspect of the matter;
The trial Court failed to note that the sickle is found
at the place of incident and the only persons present
were the appellant and the complainant and
therefore it can be presumed that the complainant
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
tried to attack the appellant and in his defence the
appellant fired on the complainant; But the trial
Court failed to note that the complainant has
admitted that the appellant used to carry his gun to
the field on daily basis and therefore, there was no
premeditation in the incident and the shots were
fired by the appellant in the self-defence only, after
the complainant tried to attack the appellant with a
sickle; The trial Court failed to note that the accused
was not having any intention to use the gun, but it
was for self-defence; If the appellant had any
intention definitely he would have fired on any vital
part of the body; Therefore, appellant/accused No.1
fired for his defence; The trial Court failed to note
that none of the ingredients of Section 30 of the
Arms Act were attracted to convict accused No.1 and
the appellant has not violated any terms of license as
he had used the gun in his self-defence; Therefore,
the question of attracting Section 30 of the Indian
Arms Act would not arise; But the trial Court
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
committed a serious error in convicting the
appellant/accused No.1 for the offence punishable
under Section 30 of the Arms Act, on the ground that
the sanction for prosecution has been obtained from
the complainant Authority. On these grounds he
prayed to allow the appeal filed by the
appellant/accused No.1. Admittedly, the State/
prosecution has not preferred any appeal.
11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and after bestowing our anxious consideration
to the rival contentions raised at the bar, the
following points would arise for our consideration:
1) Whether the judgment of acquittal
passed in S.C.No.67/2010 for the
offences punishable under Sections 341,
323, 504, 324, 506 and 307 read with
Section 34 of the IPC is based on proper
appreciation of evidence and as such, is
liable to be sustainable?
2) Whether the judgment of conviction
passed by the trial Court for the offence
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
punishable under Section 30 of the Arms
Act, insofar as accused No.1 is
concerned, is passed on proper
appreciation of evidence and as such, is
liable to be sustainable?
3) What order?
DISCUSSION ON POINTS FORMULATED ABOVE
12. Before adverting to the appreciation of evidence of
the witnesses on record, we feel it just and
necessary to have a closure look at the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses.
13. PW1 - Ramachandra, is the complainant in this case.
In his evidence, he has stated that he is the resident
of Nandihalli, an ex-army person and is having
landed property at Nandihalli village and accused
Nos. 1 and 2 are his brothers and accused Nos. 3
and 4 are his relatives, and the civil cases are
pending with regard to such lands. He further
stated that, on 29.06.2009 at about 10.00 am, he
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
had been to his lands after a couple of months, he
stood on the bund situated in the middle of Land
bearing survey Nos.169/A and 196B. At that time,
accused No.1 came there and threatened to kill him,
if he put his leg in his land, accused No.4 was
holding a bamboo in his hands, accused No.3 was
standing about 10 feet distance by holding jambe in
his hand. Accused No.1 Madhukar was standing
about 65 to 70 feet distance by holding a gun in his
hand. At the same time, accused No.4 assaulted the
complainant from a bamboo on his back. Hence he
lost is consciousness and fell down, later he was
dragged about 10-15 feet distance. Again he
regained his consciousness and he was standing
there. Thus, accused No.1 fired from his gun at a
distance of 15 feet, thus 15 chera entered his right
leg and 8 chera, entered his left leg and due to gun
shot, the complainant was unable to stand. As the
complainant was sitting on the ground, accused No.2
snatched the bamboo from accused No.4 and
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
assaulted on the right feet of the complainant.
Against accused No.3 assaulted the complainant with
bamboo on his back, once again he lost his
consciousness and regained his consciousness.
Later, accused No.1 assaulted the complainant with
gun on his chest, and thus, in order to avoid further
assault, the complainant had dragged the legs of
accused No.4 to avoid further assault and again
accused No.1 pushed him down and put the mud in
his mouth. He further stated that, all accused
persons crushed him under their feet. As soon as
the police visited the spot, he gained his
consciousness, his daughter PW6 - Pushpa and his
wife PW5 - Suman and the neighboring land owner
PW7 - Sri.Laxman Chougule came to the spot. He
further deposed that the daughter and wife came
along with the police. Later he shifted to the hospital
in a police jeep to the District Hospital, Belagavi,
where he took treatment and gave his complaint
(Ex.P1).
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
14. PW1 has undergone cross-examination by the
counsel for the accused. In the cross-examination
he admitted that he served in Army for 24 years and
he has knowledge to operate the weapons for self-
protection. He further admits that, there is civil
dispute between himself and accused Nos. 1 and 2,
in this regard their civil case was compromised in
Khanapura Civil Court, in Lok Adalath and one acre
each have been allotted to accused Nos. 1 and 2 in
the said Lok Adalath, but PW1 got stay of the said
compromise and challenged the same in the District
Court, Belagavi. But, the District Court, Belagavi,
upheld the order of the Civil Court, Khanapura, hence
PW1 approached the Hon'ble High Court. PW1
further admits that, since he purchased the lands,
therefore, he has no intention to allot said land to
accused Nos. 1 and 2 under partition, now he is not
in talking terms with accused and he left Gurlagunji
village and residing at Nandihalli village, which
pertains to his wife. PW1 further admitted that,
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
accused No.1 is having licenced gun and he used to
bring said gun to his land whenever he visited to the
land. He further admitted that, he lost
consciousness 3 to 4 times, accused persons have
assaulted him with bamboo and they have not
assaulted him with any other weapons and he did not
sustain any injuries. He further admitted that,
accused persons have assaulted him on his back with
gun handle. He further admits that, there is case
pending against him in S.C.No.303/2010, wherein
accused No.1 Madhu made allegation that, PW1 tried
to assault him with the sickle and said complaint was
lodged on the same day and on the same spot and
the said case was pending in Civil Judge and JMFC,
Kahnapur. He further admits that, he assaulted one
witness by name Damodar Kumbar in the premises
of Court and the matter is pending against PW1.
However, he denied the suggestion that, as PW1
proceeded further by holding sickle in his hand, thus
accused No.1 fired in air in order to give caution and
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
later he fired on the ground, but due to palettes he
sustained injuries. He further admitted that, about
10-15 minutes after the incident, his wife PW4 and
his daughter PW5 came to be spot.
15. PW2 - Parashuram, the spot mahazer witness has
stated that, on 19.06.2009, the police came to the
spot and drew panchanama as per Ex.P2 and seized
the blood stained mud and one bamboo, one vegan
from the spot. But in the cross-examination, PW2
has categorically admitted that, he cannot say the
survey number of the alleged spot, he does not know
about what was recorded about the spot and does
not know whether the police have seized M.O.1 on
the spot itself. He further admitted that he has not
stated anything about the contents of mahazer
before the police.
16. PW3 - Parashuram Mulla Chougule, a witness to
seizure mahazer (Ex.P4) has stated that, about five
years ago, the police called him to stood as pancha,
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
accordingly, he had been to the house of accused
No.1, where the police prepared panchanama and
took his signature on the document. But the police
have not seized any articles in his presence in the
house of accused No.1. Hence he turned hostile to
the case of the prosecution.
17. PW4 - Jyotiba Vittal Kumbar is also a witness to the
seizure mahazer (Ex.P4). In his evidence, he has
stated that, about five years ago, police called him to
the house of accused No.1 and he was standing
outside the house of accused No.1 and after a while,
the police came out from the house of accused No.1,
took his signature on the document, but he does not
know the contents of the said document and police
have not seized any article in his presence near the
house of accused No1. Therefore, he turned hostile
to the case of the prosecution.
18. PW5 - Smt.Suman is the wife of the complainant.
She has stated that, accused Nos.1 and 2 are her
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
brothers-in-laws and brother of PW1. Accused No.3
is son of Accused No.2 and Accused No.4 is the son
of PW1. The family of PW1, Accused No.1 and
Accused No.2 have got 6 acres 30 guntas of land at
Nandihalli village and out of that, 3 acres and 20
guntas of land was fallen to the share of the
complainant and remaining was fallen to the share of
accused. She further stated that, there was land
dispute between the complainant and the accused
and on 19.06.2009, at about 10.45 am, her husband
had been to the agricultural land, at that time,
accused Nos. 2 to 4 assaulted the complainant with
bamboo stick on his back, they threatened him to
finish his life, if he entered their land. She further
stated that, a sickle was in the hands of accused
No.2, accused No.1 fired with his gun on the legs of
the complainant and kicked him with their legs. At
that time, her daughter Kumari Pushpa (PW6)
Ladubai and Laxman (PW7) were present on the spot
and PW6 rescued the complainant by giving water.
- 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
The police shifted the complainant in their jeep to the
hospital.
19. PW5 has undergone intensive cross-examination by
the counsel for the accused. In the cross-
examination, she has categorically admitted that,
since 2008, there is ill-will between her family
members and the family of accused in respect of land
purchased by her husband, contending that, accused
were also contributed in purchasing said land, in this
regard, PW1 made application to the Tahasildar for
change of khata in the name of PW5; in this regard,
accused submitted their objections to the Tahasildar,
therefore, Tahasildar rejected the application filed by
PW1 and later accused persons have filed suit in
O.S.No.153/2008 for partition in respect of said land
and the said matter was compromised before Lok
Adalath. Aggrieved by the order passed in Lok
Adalath, PW1 challenged the same before Belagavi
Court as well as High Court and in this regard, there
- 28 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
is ill-will between PW1 and accused persons. She
further admits that, at the time of incident, she was
in her house and after half an hour, she went to the
spot along with her daughter. A person came to her
house and informed about the incident and as soon
as he visited the spot, police also visited the place.
But in the chief examination, she deposed about the
incident as if she is an eyewitness to the incident. It
appears that, PW5 is not an eyewitness to the
incident and the same is admitted by PW1.
20. PW6 - Pushpa, the daughter of complainant, in her
evidence she has stated inline with PW5. She
reiterates the evidence of PW5. In the cross-
examination she also admitted that, soon after the
incident, i.e., after half an hour, she came to be spot
along with the police, hence she is not an eyewitness
to the incident. Therefore, there is contradiction in
the testimony of PW6 as to the time of reaching the
spot or whether she was very much present at the
- 29 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
spot, when accused were assaulting her father
(PW1). She also admitted that, there is dispute
between accused person and his father in respect of
land and a complaint was lodged against his father
on the same day.
21. PW7 - Laxman Govinda Chougale is an independent
eyewitness to the case of the prosecution. He has
stated that his land is situated adjacent to the land of
the complainant. He know the complainant and
accused persons. He further stated that, about
couple of years ago, one day, he had been to his
land, at that time he has seen the accused while
assaulting the complainant and he does not know
anything about the incident and he has not given his
statement before the police with regard to the
incident. Hence PW7 turned hostile to the case of
the prosecution. In the cross-examination, nothing
has been elicited from his mouth to support the case
of the prosecution.
- 30 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
22. PW8 - Ramesh Bharamappa Kallolli, is the police
constable, who sent the material objects to the FSL,
Bengaluru, for examination and received
acknowledgement sent by the FSL, Bengaluru.
23. PW9 - Kenchappa Aggeppa Natikar, is the Police
Constable, who send seized articles to the FSL,
Bengaluru for examination. In the cross-examination,
he admits that he did not opened any of the pockets
seized. But he saw the description furnished in the
chit affixed to the sealed pocket.
24. PW10 - Bistunath Balikatti, is the witness to the
mahazer (Ex.P4). In his evidence, he has deposed
that, on 19.06.2009 at 4.30 pm, the police have
conducted panchanama at the spot and seized the
sickle, one club, one kadthose, one red coloured cap,
blood mixed wet mud and normal mud and the police
have seized the said articles as per M.Os. 2, 3 and 7
to 10.
- 31 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
25. PW11 - Namdev Ankalekar, is the son-in-law of the
PW1 - complainant and scribe of complaint Ex.P1.
He has stated that, as per the instructions of PW1,
he wrote the contents of the complaint. In his cross-
examination, he has admitted that, as soon as he
visited the hospital, PW1 was conscious and he has
not sustained injuries to both his hands and while
preparing the complaint (Ex.P1), two police
constables were present and the police instructed
him to write the contents of the complaint. He
further admitted that, PW1 put his signature only, on
Ex.P1.
26. PW12 - Ningappa Jayapal Madar, is the Police
Constable, who carried the FIR (Ex.P8) and
complaint (Ex.P1) in Crime No.150/2011 to the Court
of JMFC and reported to his higher officer as per
Ex.P9.
27. PW13 - Dr. M. S. Mudaginal, is the Medical Officer.
He has stated that, on 19.06.2009 at 1.30 p.m., he
- 32 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
treated PW1, who was brought to the hospital with
the history of assault with gun; He examined the
injured, and found the following injuries:
i. Multiple wounds of entry about 15 in
numbers on the dorsum of right foot and
lower 3rd of antero medial aspect of right
leg of size .2 x .2 cms no wounds of exist
seen.
ii. There are 8 wounds of entry on left foot
and antaspect of left leg. No wounds of
exit seen.
iii. Abrasion on the upper part of back 10 x 3
cms
iv. Pallet holes on the right leg foot on the
lower 3rd of right leg are grievous in
nature.
Later, PW13 issued wound certificate of PW1 to
the police as per Ex.P10.
PW13 has been cross-examined by the counsel
for the accused. In the cross-examination, he has
categorically admitted that, while examining PW1,
- 33 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
PW1 was conscious and not sustained injuries to both
hands; he has not done any surgery to PW1; he has
categorically admitted that, there were in all 17 small
pallets in the body of PW1 and he is unable to say
whether the said pallets harm the body of PW1 or not;
and later PW13 has not seen any injuries on the
person of PW1. He further admitted that, the lower
part of the body is not a vital organ. Further, he
admitted that, he has not seen any cartridges; he
further admitted that, if two persons rolled in the
rough road, the injuries mentioned in Ex.P10 would be
caused; he further admitted that there are entry
wounds and he has not seen any exit wounds, in the
person of PW1.
28. PW14 - Mahadev Peerappa Shinde is the Head
Constable, who brought the seizure articles from
RFSL, Belagavi and produced before the
Investigating Officer.
- 34 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
29. PW15 - N. G. Prabhakar, is the Director of FSL,
Bengaluru. In his evidence, he has deposed that he
examined 8 articles submitted by the Investigating
Officer and issued the report as per Ex.P17.
30. PW16 - Shrikant Fakkirappa Topage is the PSI. In
his evidence, he has stated that, on 19.06.2009, at
10.45 am, when he was in the Police Station, he
received information through telephone that, in
Nandihalli Village, there was galata between the
brothers. Hence he immediately rushed to the spot
along with his staff, saw PW1, who was injured and
later he shifted the injured PW1 in Ambulence to the
District Hospital, Belagavi and on the same day at
2.30 pm, he received the complaint from PW1 and
registered the case in Crime No.150/2009 and
forwarded the same to the Court; Later, he visited
the spot, conducted the spot panchanama, seized the
articles M.Os. 1, 2, 3, 7, 9 and 10, under Ex.P2 -
Spot Panchanama, recorded the statement of
- 35 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
witnesses, secured the accused, recorded their
voluntary statement, seized the gun (M.O.1), 4 live
bullets and conducted the seizure panchanama as
per Ex.P4. He further deposed that, on 20.06.2009,
he seized the blood stained clothes of PW1 under
Ex.P3 as per M.Os. 4 and 5; later he sent the siezed
articles to RFSL, Belagavi and FSL, Bengaluru.
31. PW17 - Dhiraj Baburao Shindi, is the PSI, who
conducted further investigation and submitted charge
sheet to the Court.
32. On careful perusal of the over all evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, the entire case revolves
around the oral evidence of PW1 - Ramachandra, the
evidence of PW5 - Suman, who is the wife of PW1,
PW6 - Pushpa, who is the daughter of PW1 and the
evidence of PW13 - Dr.M. S. Mudaginal. The major
circumstances of which are categorized in the
following manner:
- 36 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
i. Motive Factor
ii. Evidence of PWs.1, 5, 6 and 13.
33. Bearing in mind the above said principles, now we
would consider the evidence on record. We have
observed that the trial Court in detail has considered
the evidence of each and every witnesses and came
to a conclusion to acquit accused numbers 1 to 4 for
the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,
504, 324, 506 and 307 read with Section 34 of the
IPC, considering the discrepancy in the evidence of
eyewitnesses and the evidence of PW1, with
reference to the testimony of PW13 - doctor, as well
as the motive factor, the trial court has recorded that
there is serious suspicion in the case of prosecution
and hence the trial Court proceeded to acquit the
accused.
34. In the instant case, according to the prosecution,
accused Nos. 1 and 2 being the brothers of PW1, and
A3 who is son of A2 and A4 who is son of sister of
- 37 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
PW1 with a common intention, picked up quarrel with
PW1, wrongfully restrained him, in the land
intentionally insulted him voluntarily caused hurt,
made criminal intimidation to eliminate him and also
attempted to commit murder. It is not in dispute
that, PW1 - Ramachandra is none other than the
brother of accused Nos. 1 and 2. On perusal of
Ex.P1 - complaint, it transpires that, PW1 was
owning the agricultural land bearing survey No.69/A
measuring 3 acres 29 guntas situated at Nandihalli
and survey No.69AB measuring 3 acres 8 guntas was
standing in the name of the younger brother of the
complainant and both the lands are abutting to each
other. There was a land dispute between the
complainant and his brothers. Accused No.1 -
Madhukar is an ex-military man, who came to the
land with gun. Since accused No.1 assaulted PW1,
he lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. But in the
evidence of PW1, he has deposed contrary to the
contents of Ex.P1 - complaint. With regard to the
- 38 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
nature of injuries sustained. In the evidence, PW1
has stated that he has lost his consciousness four
times at the time of incident. The police have written
the complaint as per his instruction and according to
PW10 - Namadev, he wrote the contents of Ex.P1 as
per the instructions of the police. PW1 has
categorically admitted that, there is a civil dispute
between him and his brothers i.e., accused Nos. 1
and 2. He further admits that, accused No.1 is
holding a valid license to use the gun and whenever
accused No.1 come to the land, he used to bring the
gun with him. He further admits that there were no
marks of injury on his person. He further admits
that soon after the incident, the wife and daughter of
PW1 came to be spot, but as per the evidence of
PWs. 5 and 6, these are eyewitnesses to the incident
and they have seen the incident. Hence there are
contradictions in the testimony of PWs. 1, 5 and 6 as
to the presence of PWs. 5 and 6 at the time of
alleged incident. Insofar as the injuries are
- 39 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
concerned, PW1 sustained injuries to both the legs,
but no surgery was done to the left leg. In the
evidence, PW1 has categorically admitted that there
was compromise decree between himself and
accused and in the said compromise, three acres of
land towards north was fallen to his share. But PW1
was not happy with the partition and he also claiming
his right over 3 acres 8 guntas of land fallen to the
share of the accused. From the oral testimony of the
prosecution witnesses, it is clear that there is a land
dispute between the complainant and accused
persons. Further, PW1 has categorically admitted
that, nobody was there in the land when he went to
the land and the star witness PW7, who is the
independent eyewitness to the incident, has turned
hostile to the prosecution.
35. PWs. 5 and 6, have deposed, as if they are an eye
witnesses, but they are circumstantial witnesses and
they are none other than the wife and daughter of
- 40 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
PW1. On perusal of their evidence, they have
spoken about the assault made by accused to PW1.
Therefore, on perusal of entire evidence of PWs.1, 5,
6 and 7, it transpires that, except the self-serving
testimony of PW1, no other independent eyewitness
supported the case of the prosecution. In order to
prove the guilt of accused No.1 under Section 307 of
IPC, the prosecution has to prove the motive and the
manner of attempt to commit murder. In the instant
case, there is a land dispute between PW1 -
Ramachandra and accused No. 1 and 2, and there
was division of family properties amongst the
brothers. Admittedly, there was enmity between
accused and PW1 in respect of family properties.
Therefore, obviously PW1 has filed this case against
accused.
36. In the instant case, the spot mahazer witnesses have
turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and the
seizure mahazer witness have stated that, police
- 41 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
have not seized anything in their presence.
Therefore, the evidence of Investigation Officer is
not supported by any eyewitnesses. Admittedly, in
the present case, corroboration of an independent
witnesses is required in order to believe the evidence
of PW1. The case of the prosecution suffers from
inconsistencies and there are contradictions in the
evidence of PW1 and in the evidence of PWs.5 and 6.
Therefore, solely on the basis of oral evidence of
PW1, the court cannot convict the accused for the
alleged offences. The prosecution has not proved the
intention of accused beyond reasonable doubt and
there are material contradictions regarding the
injuries described in the evidence of PW1 and the
Medical Officer - PW13. Further, the prosecution
has not examined any independent eyewitness to
prove the guilt of the accused.
37. On perusal of the statement of accused No.1
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he has stated
- 42 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
that PW1 tried to assault him with a sickle and hence
he has exercised his self-defence, thus fired towards
the leg of the complainant. Right of private defence
is defined under Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, which is extracted below: Nothing is an
Section 96. Right of private defence:
Nothing is an offence which is done in the
exercise of the right of private defence.
38. In the instant case, accused No.1 has taken a
contention that, PW1 tried to enter the land of
accused persons and therefore, accused persons
have prevented PW1 not to enter their land, as there
is civil litigation pending before the Court in respect
of the land. Further, PW1 was holding a sickle in
order to attack on accused No.1 and under such
circumstances, accused No.1 fired on both legs of
PW1. Section 96 of IPC occurs in Chapter IV of the
Code and it has been explained that, if the
prosecution succeeding to establish the foundation of
- 43 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
the case, then onus lies upon accused, to prove the
exception including one under Section 96 of IPC.
When plea of private defence is set up, Section 105
of the Evidence Act, does not neutralize or shift the
general burden that lies on the prosecution to prove
beyond reasonable doubt all the ingredients of
offence with which the accused stand charged.
Hence, accused has to rebut the presumption
envisaged in the last limb of Section 105 of the
Evidence Act, by bringing on record the evidential
material before the Court sufficient for a prudent
man to believe that the existence of such
circumstances is probable. Whereas, in the instant
case, accused No.1 is ex-serviceman and he was
holding gun license.
39. Admittedly, there was dispute between PW1 and
accused persons in respect of the land and the
matter was pending before the Civil Court. The
counsel for accused submitted that, the alleged
- 44 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
incident took place, as PW1 entered the land of
accused persons and PW1 was holding sickle,
therefore, accused No.1 has exercised his right of
private defence, in order to save his person and
property. The submission made by the counsel for
accused could be true, as this factum has been
narrated in the statement of accused recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C.
40. In situations, when a civil wrong is given a cloak of a
criminal offence, the High Court should quash such
criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of process
of Court. This ratio is laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of R. Nagendra Yadav Vs. State
of Telangana in Criminal Appeal No.932/2021 dated
02.09.2021. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that,
"while a complaint disclosing civil transaction, it may
also have a criminal texture, the High Court must see
whether the dispute, which is in substance of civil
nature, has been given a cloak of a criminal offence".
- 45 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
41. In the instant case, the complainant claimed that, he
had purchased the land in question, but his brothers
(accused Nos.1 and 2) have taken a contention that,
said land was purchased out of joint family nucleus
and hence, said property is joint family property of
complainant and accused Nos. 1 and 2 and said land
is not individual property of the complainant.
Admittedly, the dispute was resolved before Lok
Adalath, in Khanapur Court. Dissatisfied with the Lok
Adalath award, complainant filed an appeal before
the District Court, Belagavi, but he did not get any
relief, hence he filed writ petition before this Court
for quashment of Lok Adalath award. In the present
case, the case of prosecution is that, the complainant
himself entered the disputed land, hence his brothers
accused Nos. 1 and 2 prevented him in entering the
land. Thus, the alleged incident took place and
ultimately, the complainant lodged the complainant
against accused Nos. 1 and 2. It appears that, the
present complaint is the outcome of Civil Litigation
- 46 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
between the complainant and his brothers (accused
Nos. 1 and 2).
42. It is well settled law that when an accused takes the
plea of right of private defence, the burden is on him
to establish the existence of right of private defence,
but he did not prove the existence of right of private
defence beyond reasonable doubt. Where right of
private defence is pleaded by accused and it is come
in the evidence of 313 statement that the accused
person is entitled to be acquitted, upon a
consideration of the evidence as a whole, including
the evidence given in support of the plea of the
general exception. As accused No.1 has taken a plea
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Court can consider
such a plea. Even in the absence of any plea, for
exercise of right of private defence, if the
circumstances speaks or it can be spelt out from the
prosecution evidence, that accused had reason to act
in exercise of right of private defence, court is to
- 47 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
extend the benefit to the accused. This ratio is laid
down in the case of Bhera Vs. State of Rajasthana
reported in 1982 Crl.L.J. (RAJ) 451.
43. The trial Court on considering the evidence of
prosecution inclusive of defence theory rendered the
judgment of acquittal. Whereas it is relevant to refer
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in
the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. Staste
of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116
wherein at paragraph 163, it is held as under:
"164. We then pass on to another important
point which seems to have been completely
missed by the High Court. It is well settled that
where on the evidence two possibilities are
available or open, one which goes in favour of the
prosecution and the other which benefits an
accused, the accused undoubtedly entitled to the
benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal
Pradesh, [(1973) 2 SCC 808] this court made the
following observations (para 25 p.820).
"Another golden thread which runs through the
web of the administration of justice in criminal
cases is that if two views are possible on the
- 48 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the
guilt of the accused and the other to his
innocence, they view which is favourable to the
accused would be adopted. This principle has a
special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the
accused is sought to be established by
circumstantial evidence."
44. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umedbhai
Jadavbhai vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1978
SCC (Cri) 108 wherein at paragraph 10 held as
under:
"10. Once the appeal was rightly entertained
against the order of acquittal, the High Court was
entitled to reappreciate the entire evidence
independently and come to its own conclusion.
Ordinarily, the High Court would give due
importance to the opinion of the Sessions Judge
if the same were arrived at after proper
appreciation of the evidence."
45. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa
and Others vs. State of Karnataka reported in
(2007) 4 SCC 415 wherein at paragraph 44 it is
held as under:
- 49 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
"In our view, if in the light of above
circumstances, the trial Court felt that the
accused could get benefit of doubt, the said view
cannot be held to be illegal, improper or contrary
to law. Hence, even though we are of the opinion
that in an appeal against acquittal, powers of
appellate Court are as wide as that of the trial
Court and it can review, reappreciate and
reconsider the entire evidence brought on record
by the parties and can come to its own conclusion
on fact as well as on law, in the present case, the
view taken by the trial court for acquitting the
accused was possible and plausible. On the basis
of evidence, therefore, at the most, it can be said
that the other view was equally possible. But it is
well-established that if two views are possible on
the basis of evidence on record and one
favourable to the accused has been taken by the
trial Court, it ought not to be disturbed by the
appellate Court. In this case, a possible view on
the evidence of prosecution had been taken by
the trial Court which ought not to have been
disturbed by the appellate Court. The decision of
the appellate Court (High Court), therefore, is
liable to be set aside."
(emphasis supplied)
46. The finding recorded by the trial court while
acquitting the accused is just and proper and based
- 50 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
on the evidence of prosecution. There is no merit in
the appeal, which calls for interference by this court.
47. In the backdrop of the above said contentions of the
learned counsel for the parties and the evidence
placed on record, we may refer the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Rajasthan v.
Raja Ram reported in [(2003) 8 SCC 180 in
regard to the jurisdiction and limitations of the
Appellate Court while considering the appeal against
an order of acquittal. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that:
"7. ... The golden thread which runs through
the web of administration of justice in
criminal cases is that if two views are
possible on the evidence adduced in the
case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused
and the other to his innocence, the view
which is favorable to the accused should be
adopted. The paramount consideration of the
court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice
is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which
may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no
less than from the conviction of an innocent.
- 51 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
[Further, it is held that] in a case where
admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast
upon the appellate court to re-appreciate the
evidence in a case where the accused has
been acquitted, for the purpose of
ascertaining as to whether any of the
accused committed any offence or not. The
principle to be followed by the appellate court
considering the appeal against the judgment
of acquittal is to interfere only where there
are compelling and substantial reasons for
doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly
unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for
interference."
48. In view of the above propositions of law and
decisions cited supra, in the present case, we have
independently analyzed and scrutinized the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses and found that the
prosecution evidence is full of omissions and
contradictions and suspicious in nature.
49. The learned trial Judge has appreciated the evidence
of PWs.1 to 17 in its right perspective and concluded
that the evidence of these witnesses has not been
- 52 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
established that accused No.1 with an intention
attempted to commit murder of PW1.
50. It is also to be noticed that the trial Court on the
basis of evidence has chosen to acquit all accused
persons on the ground that the prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond
all reasonable doubt. The evidence against all
accused is insufficient and inconsistent with each
other. This deficiency in the evidence proves fatal to
the complainant's case. In the aforementioned
situation, the provisions of Sections 341, 323, 324,
504, 506 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC
could not be attracted to hold accused persons guilty
of the offences alleged. The prosecution, therefore,
must be held to have failed to establish any case
against accused persons.
51. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harendra
Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR
1991 SC 1842, has held that, if there are two views
- 53 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
possible from the evidence on record, one pointing to
the guilt of accused and another to the innocence of
accused, then, the view, which is favourable to the
accused, is to be accepted and benefit of doubt shall
be given to the accused. The Learned Sessions Judge
placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, has given benefit of doubt to
respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 4.
52. There is no embargo on the Appellate Court
reviewing the evidence upon which an order of
acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal
shall not be interfered with because the presumption
of innocence of the accused is further strengthened
by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through
the web of administration of the Justice in criminal
cases is that, if two views are possible on the
evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the
guilt of the accused and the other to their innocence,
the view which is favourable to the accused should
- 54 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
be adopted. The paramount consideration of the
Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is
prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise
from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the
conviction of an innocent. This ratio is laid down in
the case of Ramanand Yadav Vs. Prabhunat Jha
and in the case of C.K. Dase Gowda and Others
Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2003) 12
SCC 606.
53. Having given our careful consideration to the above
stated submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties and in the backdrop of the evidence
discussed hereinabove and tested in the light of the
principles of law highlighted above, it must be held
that the evaluation of the findings recorded by the
Trial Court do not suffer from any manifest error and
improper appreciation of the evidence on record.
Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court, acquitting
the accused persons is sustainable in law.
- 55 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
54. As discussed above, the eyewitnesses to the incident
i.e. P.Ws.5 to 7, who are none other than relatives of
PW1, have not supported the prosecution case. The
panch witnesses to seizure mahazer and spot
mahazar have also not supported the prosecution
case. Therefore, there is no iota of evidence to
connect the accused persons with the alleged crime.
55. From the above evidence it is clear that except the
evidence of PW1 and official witness, none of the
witnesses have deposed in support of the prosecution
case. Under these circumstances the argument of the
learned counsel for the complainant that, PW16 the
Investigating Officer has no grudge against the
accused persons to falsely implicate them in the
alleged crime and hence, his evidence is required to
be accepted to record conviction holds no water.
56. The fact that there is no independent witnesses to
support the case of prosecution, it requires that, the
standard of evidence tendered through independent
- 56 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
witness and official witness is to be of an
unimpeachable nature. But the very sequence of
events is not convincingly portrayed. On the other
hand, it is demonstrated that, the testimony of PW1
and police witnesses falls short of the standard of
proof required to connect the accused with the
offence alleged. All these factors when viewed
cumulatively, we are of the considered opinion that
the evidence placed on record is not sufficient
enough to prove the charges leveled against the
accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
57. On careful scrutiny of the evidence available on
record, we hold that the prosecution has failed to
bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond
reasonable doubt. Therefore, the trial Court has
rightly acquitted accused persons for the aforesaid
offences.
58. Considering all the aspects of the matter, we are of
the considered opinion that the learned Sessions
- 57 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
Judge has rightly held that the prosecution has failed
to prove the guilt of respondents No.1 to 4 beyond
all reasonable doubt and rightly extended the benefit
of acquittal to respondents No.1 to 4. We do not find
any grounds to interfere with the well reasoned
judgment passed by the trial Court.
59. Insofar as Criminal Appeal No.100242/2015 is
concerned, accused No.1 has taken contention that
the trial Court convicted him for violation of Section
30 of the Indian Arms Act. Admittedly, accused No.1
has clearly admitted in his statement recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he used M.O.1 - gun at the
time of incident for his self-defence, as PW1 tried to
assault him with a sickle. Hence he fired towards the
leg of PW1.
60. Section 30 of the Arms Act deal with punishment of
contravention of license or rule. This section
contemplates that, whoever contravenes any
condition of license, or any provision of this Act, shall
- 58 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB
CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to six months or with fine, which may
extend to Rs.2,000/- or with both. Admittedly,
accused No.1 fired on PW1 and caused the injuries,
which contravenes the provisions of Arms Act.
Therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted
accused No.1 for the offence punishable under
Section 30 of the Arms Act. Hence we answer points
No.1 and 2 in the negative, holding that the criminal
appeals filed by PW1 and accused No.1 are liable to
be dismissed.
61. In the result, we pass the following order:
ORDER
i) The appeals are dismissed;
ii) The judgment of acquittal passed by the IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in S.C.No.67/2010 dated 30.10.2015, acquitting accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable
- 59 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6401-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100242 of 2015 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC is confirmed.
iii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in S.C.No.67/2010 dated 30.10.2015, convicting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 30 of the Arms Act, is confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE gab List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1