Karnataka High Court
Siddappa Mallappa Koppad vs The State on 26 August, 2020
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad, V.Srishananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 26th day of August 2020
Present
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
Criminal Appeal No.100182 of 2015
Between
Siddappa Mallappa Koppad,
Age: 62 Years, Occ :Agriculture,
R/o: Bijaguuppi, Tq: Ramdurg,
Dist: Belgaum. ...Appellant
(By Smt. Sumangala A. Chakalabbi, Advocate)
And
1. The State of Karnataka,
Through PSI, Katakol Police Station,
Represented by SPP,
High Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, Dharwad.
2. Palaxi Gususiddappa Naragunda,
Age: 24 Years, R/o: Bijaguppi,
Tq: Ramdurga, Dist: Belgaum.
3. Gurusiddappa Gurappa Naragunda,
Age: 51 Years, R/o: Bijaguppi,
Tq: Ramdurga, Dist: Belgaum. ...Respondents
(By Sri. V.M.Banakar, Addl. SPP for R1
Sri. Ramachandra Mali, Amicus Curiae for R2 & R3
Sri. S.M.Kalwad, Advocate for R2 - absent)
2
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of
Cr.P.C of seeking to set aside the judgment and order dated
12.03.2014 passed by the Court of Hon'ble II Additional
Session Judge, Belgaum, at Belgaum in S.C. No.421/2011 by
convicting respondent Nos.2 and 3/accused persons for the
offences charged under Sections 307, 504, and 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Appeal having been heard and reserved
on 11.08.2020, and coming on for pronouncement of
Judgment this day, B.M. SHYAM PRASAD., J, delivered the
following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by Sri. Siddappa Mallappa Koppad, who is allegedly assaulted by the respondents on 31.01.2011, impugning the judgment dated 12.03.2014 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi (for short, 'the Sessions Court'). The Sessions Court by the impugned judgment has acquitted the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Initially, the appellant's son, Sri Shivanand Siddappa Koppad, the complainant, filed appeal in Criminal 3 Appeal No.100122/2014 impugning the Sessions Court's judgment dated 12.03.2014. But this appeal is disposed of by this Court on 03.08.2015 with liberty to the appellant, the injured, to file appropriate appeal. The appellant after this order dated 03.08.2015 has filed this appeal impugning the Session Court's judgement dated 12.03.2014.
3. The appellant's son lodged the first information with the Katakol Police Station on 31.01.2011 alleging that the respondents assaulted his father - the appellant - with the wooden handle of an axe and a stone on 31.01.2011 between 06:00 and 08:30 a.m. The gist of the first information are:
3.1 The appellant left the residence at about 06:00 a.m. in the morning on 31.01.2011 stating that he was going to the lands at Magini, Bijjaguppi Village, Saundatti Taluk. At around 08:30 a.m. the complainant received a call from Sri.Basappa Basalingappa Koppad informing him that Sri.Yallappa Adiveppa Shingadi called him stating that the appellant was assaulted by the respondents when he objected to the respondents taking up planting sugarcane in 4 the land. The appellant had instructed the owners of the land not to let anybody cultivate the land because they owed him some money, nevertheless the respondents were planting sugarcane in the land.
3.2 The first respondent assaulted the appellant on his head with the wooden handle of a spade and the second respondent assaulted him with a stone on his eye, and the respondents were threatening the appellant saying that if the appellant were to object again, they would do away with his life. When Sri.Yallappa Adiveppa Shingadi tried to intervene, the respondents ran away leaving behind the spade and the stone. The appellant was bleeding from his nose and was severely injured.
3.3 The complainant, on coming to know about the respondents assaulting the appellant, rushed to the place of occurrence on a friend's motorcycle with Sri.Suresh Irappa Pattar and Sri. Basappa Erappa Sakkari. When he reached the place of occurrence, he saw the appellant lying next to a pile of harvested sugarcane. The appellant was unconscious. 5
He was injured on his head and left eye, and he was bleeding from the nose. He took the appellant on the motorcycle to Patil Hospital at Salahalli. Sri Suresh Irappa Pattar was driving the motorcycle at that time.
3.4 The doctor at Salahalli Patil Hospital informed him that the appellant was seriously injured and he should be shifted to a Hospital at Ramadurga. Therefore, they hired a vehicle and took the appellant to Kulagodu Hospital, Ramadurga, where he was administered initial treatment and recommended to be shifted to a bigger hospital. The appellant was shifted to Lake View Hospital, Belagavi by ambulance.
4. The Police have registered this information as the first information in Crime No.24/2011 01.02.2011 at 01:45 a.m for the offences punishable under Section 326, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. Later, the Police have recorded the complainant's additional statement. The complainant has stated in this subsequent statement that in his anxiety he did not mention earlier that the second respondent had assaulted the appellant on the left eye with a stone and that the 6 respondents had assaulted the appellant using a spade and a stone with the intention to commit his murder. The Police, upon recording the complainant's additional statement, have submitted a requisition with the jurisdictional Magistrate to include the offence under Section 307 of IPC in the FIR deleting Section 326 of IPC. The learned Magistrate has accorded permission.
5. The Police has filed charge sheet against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC after completing the investigation. The learned Magistrate, after securing the presence of the respondents who were on bail, and on ensuring compliance with the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), has committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court, upon hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondents and being of the opinion that there is prima facie case against the respondents for offence under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of IPC, has framed charges. 7 On the charge being read over, the respondents have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution to prove its case has examined 13 witnesses. The complainant, Sri.Shivannad siddappa Koppad, is examined as PW.1. The panchas for the recovery of MOs. (a spade and a stone) and the conduct of spot mahazar at the place of occurrence are examined as PWs.2 and 3. Sri. Basappa Basalingappa Koppad, who has stated before the Police that he had called the complainant to inform him about Sri.Yallappa Adiveppa Shingadi calling him to tell that the appellant was assaulted, is examined as PW.5. Sri. Yallappa Adiveppa Shingadi is examined as PW.4. Sri. Suresh Irappa Pattar, who accompanied the complainant to the place of occurrence and from there to the Hospital at Salahalli, is examined as PW.6. The complainant's friend, Sri.Basappa Irappa Sakkari, who accompanied the complainant to the place of occurrence, is examined as PW.8. The doctors who treated the injured, Dr. Anil Kumar Babugowda Patil and Dr. Praveen Koppad, are examined as PW 7 and PW 11. The 8 appellant is examined as PW.9. The police personnel are examined as PW10, PW 12 and PW 13.
7. The prosecution has marked Exhibits P.1 to Ex. P.21. The exhibits marked include first information that is marked as Exhibit P1, Spot Panchanama that is marked as Exhibit P3, the statements of the Complainant P.W.1 and his relatives/ friends P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 that are marked examined as Exhibit P.2, Exhibit P.4, Exhibit P.5 and Exhibit P.6 respectively, the Wound Certificate/ Medical Certificates that are marked as Exhibit P.7, Exhibit P.8 and Exhibit P.18 and the FIR that is marked as Exhibit P.19. The prosecution has also marked a spade and a stone as Material Objects.
8. The Sessions Court has concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the following reasons:
a. The prosecution's case is that the appellant (P.W.9) was assaulted by the respondents between 8:00 and 8:30 in the morning on 31.1.2011. The first information is 9 lodged at 1:45 AM on 1.2.2011. There is a delay of 16-17 hours in registering the first information.
b. The delay in filing the first information is not sufficiently explained though the appellant is taken to two different hospitals before he is admitted to Lake View Hospital, Belgaum. There are contradictions in the evidence of the complainant (P.W.1) and the investigating officer (P.W.12) as regards the circumstances preceding the registration of the FIR. The prosecution has also failed to explain why the others at home of the complainant could not inform the police about the assault prior to the complainant's statement being recorded at 1:45 AM on 1.2.2011.
c. The panchas for the recovery of MOs. (the spade and the stone) and the conduct of spot mahazar at the place of occurrence are examined as PWs.2 and 3 have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution's case.
d. Sri. Yallappa Adiveppa Shingadi (P.W.4), Sri. Basappa Basalingappa Koppad (P.W.5), Sri. Suresh Irappa Pattar (P.W.6) and Sri.Basappa Irappa Sakkari (P.W.8), who, according to the prosecution, informed the complainant about 10 the respondents assaulting the appellant and accompanied the complainant to the place of occurrence and later to the hospital/s, have turned partially hostile and have not supported the prosecution's case insofar as the respondents assaulting the appellant.
e. The prosecution's case insofar as motive is that the owners of the subject land - the appellant's nephews - owed certain monies to the injured and therefore, he had asked them not to allow anybody to cultivate their land until his dues were settled. Nevertheless, the respondents - tenants of the land-were trying to plant sugarcane. When the appellant objected, the respondents assaulted him. But, the transaction between the appellant and his nephews is not established. The prosecution has failed to cite or examine the appellant's nephews, or produce documentary proof of the transaction with his brother/his nephews.
f. The complainant (P.W.1) cannot be believed because of the contradictions in his evidence and his friends' statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The 11 complainant's friends, including the supposed eyewitness, Sri. Yallappa Adiveppa Shingadi (PW.4) have turned hostile.
g. The evidence as regards the place of occurrence is also not believable because there are two versions as regards the nature of the agricultural operations in the land in the same spot mahazar (Exhibit P3). The weapons used viz., a spade and a stone have not been subjected to forensic examination.
h. The appellant's evidence is also not credible and believable because, though he states in his chief examination that the respondents abused and assaulted him with the material objects (the spade and the stone), he has stated that he is seeing these objects for the first time in the Court. There was a dispute between him and his nephews over certain monies due to him under a transaction with his brother, Sri Nagappa, and the transaction with his brother was about 7-8 years prior to the incident. But he also deposes that his brother, Sri Nagappa, died about 18-20 years prior to the incident; and the dispute with his nephews has continued for 12 about 10 years. The appellant has also admitted that he had good and harmonious relationship with the respondents apart from admitting that he has had no monetary transactions with them.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance upon different decisions urged different grounds in support of the appeal. Firstly, the learned counsel relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Murugan and another v. State of Tamil Nadu1 argued that an acquittal order could be set aside for substantial and compelling reasons. An Appellate Court, sitting in judgment over an order of acquittal, must necessarily seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong or manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable: if the appellate court answers the above question in the negative, the order of acquittal should not be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of certain infirmities it can then 1 (2008) 16 Supreme Court Cases 40 13 reappraise the evidence and arrive at its own conclusion. The impugned judgment is palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous and demonstrably unsustainable. Therefore, this Court must reappraise the evidence and conclude against the respondents.
10. Secondly, the Sessions Court has discarded the prosecution's case on the ground that the delay in filing the first information i.e., a delay of about 16-17 hours from the time of occurrence has not been sufficiently explained. But there is no delay in filing the first information. It is indisputable that the injured was first taken to a hospital at Salahalli on a motorcycle and later to Ramadurg in an ambulance, and finally to the Lake View Hospital in Belgaum. The injured was administered first aid both at Salehalli and Ramadurg. The Sessions Court, ignoring these material and indisputable circumstances, has erroneously concluded that the delay of 16-17 hours has not been explained. In any event, the Session Court's conclusion as regards the delay in lodging the FIR is contrary to the settled principle that mere delay in filing FIR cannot be fatal in all cases and delay in 14 lodging FIR cannot be a ground to throw away the prosecution's case in its entirety. The learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab and another2 in support of the canvass in this regard.
11. Thirdly, the Sessions Court has concluded that the prosecution is not able to establish motive because the documentary evidence to establish transaction between the appellant and his nephews is not produced. The appellant's nephews have not been cited or examined as witnesses. There is contradiction in the appellant's evidence as regards the details of the transaction, and none of the prosecution's witnesses have corroborated the testimonies of the complainant and the appellant about the transaction. However, it is settled law, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nachittar Singh v. State of Punjab3, that the prosecution's failure to establish motive for a crime does not mean that the entire prosecution's case has to be thrown out 2 (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 228 3 (1975) 3 Supreme Court cases 266 15 and the prosecution's failure to establish motive only casts a duty on the Court to scrutinise the other evidence, more particularly the eyewitnesses' account with greater care. The Sessions Court has erred in discarding the appellant's evidence, an eye witness's account which is also corroborated by the complainant's evidence, ignoring this salient proposition.
12. Fourthly, Sri. Yallappa Adiveppa Shingadi (PW 4), who called up Sri. Basappa Basalingappa Koppad (PW 5) and informed him about the respondents assaulting the appellant and also asked him to inform the complainant, has turned hostile. But, Sri. Basappa Basalingappa Koppad (PW 5) is indeed steadfast in his evidence that Sri. Yallappa Adiveppa Shingadi (PW 4) called him and told him that the respondents had assaulted the appellant. The evidence of Sri. Basappa Basalingappa Koppad (PW 5) would be relevant. In the light of this relevant piece of evidence, the Sessions Court could not have given benefit of Sri. Yallappa Adiveppa Shingadi (PW 4) turning hostile.
16
13. Fifthly, the learned counsel submits that the investigating officer has placed on record the testimonies, which demonstrates the respondents' culpability, in recording the statement of the appellant (PW 9) and Sri. Yallappa Adiveppa Shingadi (PW.4) - an eyewitness; the investigating officer's evidence cannot be discarded only because these witnesses have either turned hostile or not been able to be consistent, nor could any fault be found with the investigating officer either in not citing any person as a witness or in not placing a document on record in the light of the appellant's evidence.
14. Lastly, the learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh versus State of Maharashtra4 and State of Uttar Pradesh versus Krishna Gopal and another5, to canvass that the settled law is that public servants, prima facie, must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and an investigating officer's evidence cannot be doubted only because some of the 4 (2008) 13 Supreme Court Cases 271 5 (1988) 4 Supreme Court cases 302 17 witnesses have chosen to retract from their statement made during investigation. In view of this settled principle, the Sessions Court has erred in disregarding the investigating officer's evidence. The undisputed fact that the appellant was hospitalised for over 3 weeks and had to undergo head surgery in conjunction with the testimony of the complainant (PW1), the appellant (PW 9) and Sri. Basappa Basalingappa Koppad (PW 5) establish the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt.
15. The question that arises for consideration is:
Whether there are any grounds for interference with the Sessions Court's finding that the prosecution has not been able to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the respondents assaulted the appellant - the injured (PW 9) on his head in the morning of 31.1.2011 using the handle of a spade and a stone with the intention of committing his murder.
16. It is oft reiterated by the Apex Court that (a) an Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider evidence upon which an order of acquittal is 18 founded, (b) the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not limit or restrict or condition the exercise of an Appellate Court's jurisdiction and an Appellate Court may reach its own conclusion, both on the questions of fact and law, based on the evidence on record, (c) the expression such as 'substantial and compelling reasons' are only to emphasise an Appellate Court's reluctance to interfere with an order of acquittal, and
(d) if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, an Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by a trial Court. However, at this point, it would be necessary to observe that the Hon'ble Apex Court6 has also often reiterated that:
"An appellate court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is a 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 6 A useful reference in this regard could be made not only to the decision in Murugan and another v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to its decision in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 3 25, but also to the decision in Brahm Swaroop v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 12 Supreme Court Cases 288 and later cases.19
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
This Court, in this appeal against an order of acquittal, in view of the aforesaid exposition, cannot disturb the Sessions Court's finding unless this Court is of the opinion that the Sessions Court's judgment is perverse or is persuaded to interfere by very compelling reasons7.
17. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon certain other propositions drawing support from the different authorities as are mentioned supra. The prosecution's failure to establish motive would not justify throwing out the prosecution's entire case if the same is established by credible evidence such as the testimony of eyewitnesses, especially the injured eyewitness; and, an investigating officer must be presumed, prima facie, has acted honestly and conscientiously and his evidence cannot be 7Nallabothu Ramulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 12 Supreme Court Cases 261 20 discarded only because the witnesses, whose statement he has recorded, have chosen to go back on the same. Suffice it would be to observe that these are settled propositions, and the evidence on record will have to be assessed as against the touchstone of these propositions.
18. In this case there is no dispute that the appellant was injured as mentioned in the Wound Certificates as per Exhibit P.78, and he had to undergo hospitalisation for surgery. The question is whether the respondents caused these injuries. The prosecution's case is that Sri. Yallappa Adiveppa Shingadi (PW.4), who witnessed the respondents assaulting the appellant with a spade and a stone, called up Sri. Basappa Basalingappa Koppad (PW 5) and asked him to inform the complainant about the same. If there is reasonable doubt in this version that the respondents caused these injuries using a spade and a stone, the respondents cannot be found guilty of the offences alleged against them.
8 Comminuted Depressed Fracture of Frontal and Left Parietal Bone and Black Eye 21
19. The recovery of the material objects viz., a spade and a stone allegedly used by the respondents to assault the appellant (PW 9) at the alleged place of occurrence is not established as the panch witnesses to the drawing up of respective mahazars at the place of occurrence and for the recovery of the material objects have not supported the prosecution's case. Sri. Suresh Irappa Pattar (PW 6) has only partially supported the prosecution's case inasmuch he only states that he went with the complainant to the place where the appellant was lying and later accompanied him and the injured to Salahlli. He is categorical that he does not know anything else about the occurrence. Sri. Yallappa Adiveppa Shingadi (PW.4) an alleged eyewitness has not supported the prosecution's case howsoever. These circumstances by themselves would have a vital bearing in establishing the prosecution's case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt.
20. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of the complainant (PW1), the appellant (PW 9), Sri. Basappa Basalingappa Koppad (PW 5) and Sri. Basappa Irappa Sakkari 22 (PW 8). Sri. Basappa Basalingappa Koppad (PW 5) has only partially supported the prosecution's case. He has stated that Sri. Yallappa Adiveppa Shingadi (PW.4) called him and told him that the respondents assaulted the appellant. But he has denied his statement before the police that Sri. Yallappa Adiveppa Shingadi (PW.4) informed him that the respondents assaulted the appellant on his forehead and above the eye and ran away from the place of occurrence on seeing him. Therefore, the testimony of this witness could not help the prosecution in proving its case that the respondents assaulted the appellant.
21. Further, neither the complainant nor Sri. Basappa Irappa Sakkari (PW 8) is an eyewitness. Their testimony as regards the respondents assaulting the appellant (PW 9) is that Sri. Yallappa Adiveppa Shingadi (PW.4) called up Sri. Basappa Basalingappa Koppad (PW 5) and informed him about the respondents assaulting the appellant and running away from the place of occurrence when he intervened. The complainant says Sri. Basappa Basalingappa Koppad (PW 5) himself informed him about his conversation 23 with Sri. Yallappa Adiveppa Shingadi (PW 4), and Sri. Basappa Irappa Sakkari (PW 8) says that the complainant informed him about the conversation between Sri. Yallappa Adiveppa Shingadi (PW 4) and Sri. Basappa Basalingappa Koppad (PW
5).
22. The relevance of their evidence will have to be examined in the light of the exposition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukar v. State of Uttar Pradesh9 that Section 6 of the Evidence Act embodies an exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible; however, a statement made contemporaneously with the act which constitute the offence or at least immediately thereafter would be admissible. But, if there is any room for inference that the statement is fabricated, then such statement would not be part of res gestae and would be inadmissible. Even if the evidence of these witnesses as regards Sri. Yallappa Adiveppa Shingadi (PW.4) calling up Sri. Basappa Basalingappa Koppad (PW 5) and telling him that the respondents assaulted the 9Sukar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1999) 9 Supreme Court Cases 507 24 injured is permissible as forming part of res gestae, it will have to be seen whether their evidence in this regard is so reliable that a conviction can be based on their testimony without corroboration.
23. Sri.Basappa Irappa Sakkari (PW 8) is a nephew of the appellant (PW 9). This witness's mother is the appellant's younger sister. He is unable to say when the appellant and his brother, Sri Nagappa separated and over which land the appellant had differences with his brother's sons. He is also unable to explain the transaction between them. He states that he knows only what the complainant (PW.1) has told him. He is also not certain about the time of occurrence and who were present when he went to the place of occurrence along with the complainant. He, despite the close relationship, is unable to explain the relationship between the appellant and the respondents and a possible dispute between them. These circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, render this witness's testimony unreliable.
25
24. The complainant (PW1) who is the son of the appellant is the next witness who has mentioned that Sri. Yallappa Adiveppa Shingadi (PW.4) called up Sri. Basappa Basalingappa Koppad (PW 5) and informed him that the respondents assaulted the appellant and fled from the place of occurrence when he intervened. The Sessions Court, while considering his evidence, has observed that this complainant has stated that en route to Belgaum there is Katkolla Police Station and they stopped at this police station with the appellant - the injured who was recommended to be taken to higher Hospital for treatment. The Police Inspector at the station advised them to take the appellant to a higher Hospital immediately and a complaint could be registered later. This version of course is denied by the investigating officer and it is also not part of the appellant's statement recorded under 161 Cr.P.C. This obvious improvement is an effort to explain the delay in registering the first information. The evidence of this witness because of this improvement and the fact that the appellant - the injured - is his father will have to be accepted with utmost circumspection.
26
25. This takes us to the appellant's evidence. But his evidence that the respondents assaulted him with a spade and a stone when he objected to the respondents planting sugarcane stalks (billets) will have to be assessed in the light of certain circumstances. The appellant, despite his evidence that the first respondent assaulted him with a spade and the second respondent assaulted him with a stone, has stated in his cross-examination that he has seen the material objects - the spade and the stone for the first time in the court. The material objects - have not been subjected to any forensic examination. Except ocular assertion, shorn of all details as observed by the Sessions Judge, there is no evidence of the transaction between the appellant and his nephews. He states that the respondents were planting sugarcane stalks (billets) in the land when he objected and when the complainant came to the place of occurrence with his friend he was lying amidst sugarcane stalks (billets). However, Exhibit P3 (spot mahazar) is that the sugarcane planting was done and land flooded with water. These circumstances render even this witness's testimony unreliable.
27
26. Thus, on a cumulative assessment of the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution is not able to establish that the respondents assaulted the appellant and caused injuries as mentioned in the wound certificate (Exhibit P7). The Sessions Court's conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the respondent does not suffer from any perversity or infirmity in law.
In the light of the discussion above, there is no reason for interference in this appeal, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Kms