- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14337 CRL.RP No. 514 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 514 OF 2021 BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY UPPINANGADY POLICE STATION, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BENGALURU-560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) AND: 1. MR. THIMMAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O DIMBA GOWDA, R/AT PANDRADKA HOUSE, HIREBANDADY VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 201. 2. POOVANI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. DIMBA GOWDA, R/AT PANDRADKA HOUSE, HIREBANDADY VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 201. 3. KOOSA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O. DIMBA GOWDA, Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14337 CRL.RP No. 514 of 2021 R/AT PANDRADKA HOUSE, HIREBANDADY VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATASWAMY GOWDA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.01.2020 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K., IN CRL.A.NO.5037/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTING DATED 28.02.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR D.K., IN C.C.NO.1646/2011 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341,323,324,326 R/W 34 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER The State has preferred this revision petition against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.5037/2018 dated 20.01.2020 by the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru sitting at Puttur, D.K., (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Sessions Judge' for short), whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the State by confirming the acquittal judgment passed in C.C.No.1646/2011 dated 28.02.2018 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, at Puttur, D.K (Hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court' for short). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14337 CRL.RP No. 514 of 2021 2. The abridged facts of the case are that: On 15.04.2011 at about 7.30 p.m., PW.1 to PW.3 were proceeding near Hirebandady Village, Pandradka, Puttur Taluk at that time, accused Nos.1 to 3 in furtherance of their common intention by holding MO.1-wooden club wrongfully restrained them and questioned them as to why they are spreading roomers about the daughter of accused No.1. Further, all of a sudden, accused No.1 assaulted PW.1 on his right shoulder, left shoulder, left hand and other parts of the body with MO.1- wooden club. Accused Nos.2 and 3 held PW.1, pushed him down and they also assaulted him with the wooden club. When PW.2 made an attempt to rescue PW.1, accused also assaulted PW.2 with the same weapon. Subsequently, PW.1 and PW.2 shifted to hospital at Puttur. On the next day i.e., on 16.04.2011, PW.1 lodged a complaint against the accused as per Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1, the Uppinangadi Police registered a case in Crime No.37/2011 dated 16.04.2011 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 r/w 34 of IPC as per Ex.P3. Later, PW.7-the investigation officer laid charge sheet against the accused for the aforementioned offences before the trial Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14337 CRL.RP No. 514 of 2021 3. In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution in total examined 7 witnesses before the trial Court as PW.1 to PW.7 and got marked 6 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 so also got identified one material objects as MO.1. However, the respondent/accused got marked one document as Ex.D1. 4. After assessment of oral and documentary evidence placed before the trial Court, the trial Court passed the judgment by acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 r/w 34 of IPC. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner-State has preferred the criminal appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5037/2018. On reassessment of the oral and documentary evidence and documents on record, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State by confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court . Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14337 CRL.RP No. 514 of 2021 6. I have heard the learned HCGP, Sri. Channappa Erappa, for the revision petitioner-State and Sri. Venkataswamy Gowda, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. The primary contention of the learned HCGP is that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have grossly erred in passing the acquittal judgments in spite of prosecution placing sufficient evidence before the trial Court. He further contended that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a right perspective. According to him, PW.1 and PW.2 being the injured have specifically deposed about the assault made by the accused on the date of incident with MO.1. They also identified the accused before the Court and the wooden club- MO.1. Further PW.3 being the eyewitness to the incident also supported the case of the prosecution. The oral testimony of PW.1 to PW.3 corroborates to the medical evidence i.e., the wound certificates placed by the prosecution as per Ex.P4 to Ex.P6. In such circumstance, there is no reason to discard the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 coupled with the medical evidence. In such circumstances, the trial Court totally erred while acquitting the accused in the impugned judgment, which was - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14337 CRL.RP No. 514 of 2021 wrongly upheld by the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition and to convict the accused/respondents for the charges levelled against them. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused contended that both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court after meticulously examining the entire evidence and documents available on record, passed well reasoned judgments, which do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He further contended that there are total infirmities in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3-the injured eyewitnesses. More over, the doctor, who treated PW.1 to PW.3, has not examined before the trial Court. In such circumstances, the prosecution totally failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused for the charges levelled against them. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties so also perused the documents, the only point that would arise for my consideration is: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14337 CRL.RP No. 514 of 2021 "Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the appeal in Crl.A.No.5037/2018 dated 20.01.2020 thereby confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.1646/2011 dated 28.02.2018? 10. I have given my anxious consideration on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and also carefully perused the entire evidence and the materials on record placed before me. 11. On careful perusal of the materials on record, it could be gathered that PW.1 has lodged the complaint before the Uppinangadi Police on 16.04.2011 as per Ex.P1 alleging that on 15.04.2011 at about 7.00 p.m. when he was proceeding a place called Hirebandady Village, Pandradka, Putturu Taluk, accused Nos.1 to 3 illegally restrained him and questioned him that why he was spreading roomers in respect of daughter of accused No.1 and assaulted PW.1 discriminately with MO.1-wooden club. When PW.2 made an attempt to rescue PW.1, accused also assaulted PW.2. On perusal of the evidence of PW.1, though he supported the case of the prosecution, albeit, in the cross-examination, he has specifically stated that there was a dispute between himself and the accused. Further, he was unable to identify the accused at the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14337 CRL.RP No. 514 of 2021 time of incident. He further deposed that he did not know, who are the accused assaulted him from MO.1-wooden club. Further it is the specific admission of PW.1 that before assault, PW.1 and the accused quarreled for about half an hour and thereafter, the alleged incident caused. Even PW.2-eyewitness to the alleged incident and specifically stated that before the incident itself, he fled away from the spot. Though the prosecution has relied Ex.P4 and Ex.P5-the wound certificates, beside, failed to examine the author of Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, the Doctor, who treated the PW.1 and PW.2. It is argued by the learned HCGP that the injuries sustained by PW.1 and PW.2 are grievous in nature. But, there is no X-ray report or CT scan placed by the prosecution. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, there are totally infirmities in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 in respect of the alleged incident and identification of the accused. Further the evidence of PW.1 also reads contradicts to his complaint-Ex.P1. The mahazar witnesses-PW.2 and PW.4 also not fully supported the case of prosecution. In such circumstances, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the accused for charges leveled against them. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14337 CRL.RP No. 514 of 2021 12. This being a revision against the acquittal order, passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.R.Sundar and others V/s State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581 on summarizing the principles to exercise the power by the Appellate Court to interfere in the order of an acquittal in paragraph No.9 held as under: “9. Normally, when an Appellate Court exercises appellate jurisdiction, the duty of the Appellate Court is to find out whether the verdict which is under challenge is correct or incorrect in law and on facts. The Appellate Court normally ascertains whether the decision under challenge is legal or illegal. But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court cannot examine the impugned judgment only to find out whether the view taken was correct or incorrect. After re- appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court must first decide whether the Trial Court's view was a possible view. The Appellate Court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Only by recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless the Appellate Court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion. Thus, the Appellate Court must see whether the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting an accused can be reasonably taken on the basis of the evidence on record. If the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that another view could have been taken.” - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14337 CRL.RP No. 514 of 2021 13. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mallappa And Others v. State Of Karnataka reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544 on summarizing the principles in dealing with the appeal/revision against the acquittal in paragraph No.42 held as under: “42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play 9 AIR 1961 SC 715 while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as: (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive – inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:14337 CRL.RP No. 514 of 2021 (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 14. On careful perusal of the above guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the instant case, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and there is no perversity in the judgments passed by the Courts below. In that view of the matter, I am declining to interfere in the judgment passed by the trial Court which was upheld by the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, I answered the point raised above in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10