- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100287 OF 2019 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, ANKOLA POLICE STATION, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. &APPELLANT (BY SHRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) AND: 1. SHRI MOHAMMAD AJARUDDIN @ AJAR, S/O. ABDUL RAJAK, AGE: 26 YEARS, R/O. KATAPADI, BIMUDA, UDUPI, PIN CODE-574105. 2. SHRI AJARUDDIN @ AJAR ASANABBA, AGE: 20 YEARS, Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 R/O. NEAR BALNOOR MASJID, HALEANGADI, MANGALURU, PIN CODE-574146. 3. SHRI IBRAHIM KHALEEL @ IBRAHIM, S/O. ABBUBKAR, AGE: 20 YEARS, R/O. GUDEANGADI, AJAKARU, KARKAL, UDUPI, PIN CODE-576113. &RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI GANESH RAIBAGI, ADV. FOR R1; R2 AND R3- EXECUTED BAILABLE WARRANT) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 18/03/2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR IN S.C.NO.48/2011 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 18/03/2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR IN S.C.NO.48/2011 AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENTS / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 342, 397 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) The Appellant 3 State has filed this appeal under Sections 378(1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 8the Cr.P.C.9), challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 18th March 2019 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar (hereinafter referred to as 8the Trial Court9) in S.C. No.48/2011, acquitting the accused persons of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 342 and 397 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 8IPC9). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The appellant is the State and respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 respectively. 4. The summary of the case of prosecution before the Trial Court as could be gathered from the charge sheet is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 that, PW.6, Basavaraj, Sub-Divisional Engineer working in BSNL Karwar, is residing at Karwar and his family is residing at Hubballi. On weekend days, he used to visit Hubballi to meet his family members. On 13.08.2010, PW.6 had visited Sunksal Telephone exchange on official duty. After completing his duty at about 05:00 p.m., he was standing in-front of bus-stand near Sunksal Telephone Exchange to board Hubballi Bus. At that time, accused Nos.1 to 5 along with two more persons came in Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No.KA-05/MD-3956 as passengers of the said vehicle and stopped same near PW.6 saying that they are going towards Hubballi, if he made to board their Scorpio, to get they drop at Hubballi. Though initially he refused to board the vehicle. He was forced to board the vehicle and the accused held his hand forcibly and took him inside the vehicle and thereafter travelled about 4 kms., the accused removed weapons, such as, iron rod and spanner and assaulted PW.6, wrongfully confined him inside the vehicle and by showing weapons took Rs.3,500/- cash, ATM card, mobile, wrist watch. Thereafter, he was taken to Yellapur - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 and forcibly obtaining pin number, they withdrawn money from ATM. Thereafter, he was taken to Kundapura, Udupi, Mudabidre and at Bantwal. When the vehicle was stopped for making payment of toll, at the said Toll Plaza, PW.6 alerted Toll Plaza staff, who suspect the behaviuor of inmates of the Scorpio vehicle, put the obstacles by checking further movement of the vehicle wherein all the inmates escaped from the spot and toll people alerted Bantwal Police, who rushed to the spot, took vehicle and accused Nos.1 to 5 to the Police Station, wherein they were arrested on the complaint of PW.6, law set into motion and thereafter, it was transferred to the Ankola Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. PW.9, the Police Inspector of Ankola Police Station has investigated the case and ultimately filed the charge sheet. 5. After perusing the materials before it and hearing both the side, the Trial Court framed the charges as against the respondents (accused persons) for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 342 and 397 read with - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 section 34 of IPC. Since, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the trial was held, wherein, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused persons, the prosecution got examined in all 9 witnesses as PWs.1 to 9, got produced and marked documents as Exs.P.1 to 12 and material objects marked as MOs.1 to 9. From the accused side, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got marked as exhibits. 6. After hearing both the side, the Trial Court, by its judgment dated 18.03.2019, acquitted accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 342 and 397 read with Section 34 of IPC. Insofar accused No.2, the case was abated, since he died and case against accused No.5 had been split up in S.C.No.31/2015. Challenging the same, the appellant 3 State has preferred the present appeal. 7. The appellant 3 State has taken contention that, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. PW.2 is an - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 eyewitness, who has consistently and categorically stated before the Trial Court about the presence of the accused in vehicle along with PW.6, victim and also identified vehicle seized and material objects MOs.1 to 9. The evidence of PW.2 is further corroborated by the evidence of PW.6, who had stated before the Trial Court regarding the kidnap and also commission of the robbery by the accused persons and also identified the vehicles used for the commission of offence and also MOs.1 to 9 seized in this case. PW.2 has stated before the Trial Court regarding the presence of all the accused at the relevant point of time. Further the evidence of PW.2 and PW.6 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.5, the Head Constable, who was present at the time of apprehending arrest of the accused persons along with PW.6, victim and also at the time of seizure of Scorpio vehicle used for commission of the offence. PW.8 is the person who had witnessed in kidnapping of PW.6 by the accused persons at the relevant point of time. Though, all these witnesses have supported the case of prosecution, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons on the ground that the witnesses - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 have not identified the accused persons. The reasoning assigned by the Trial Court is contrary to the settled principle of law, as after lapse of eight years, the witnesses have not identified the accused persons. However, said fact has not been taken into judicial notice by the Trial Court. Further, the Trial Court also acquitted the accused persons on the ground that, the Investigating Officer had not seized the CCTV Footages and also ATM particulars regarding the withdrawal of the money from the account of PW.6 and also not recovered the robbed amount. The Trial Court acquitted the accused persons, on the ground that, identification parade was not conducted by the investigating agency. Non- conducting of identification parade is not fatal to the case of prosecution, as the witnesses have identified accused persons at the time of trial. On all these grounds, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to allow the appeal by convicting the accused for the offences. 8. Learned counsel for respondents/accused persons vehemently contended that, the judgment of the Trial Court - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 is based on material on record. The Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused persons of alleged offences. Further, the Trial Court has assigned valid reasons in acquitting the accused persons. Hence, it does not require any interference by this Court. 9. The Trial Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 10. Heard the arguments from both the side. Perused the material placed before this Court, including the memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment and the Trial Court records. 11. After hearing the learned counsels from both the side, the points that arise for Court9s consideration in this appeal are as follows: (i) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 13.08.2010 at 05:00 p.m., accused persons kidnapped PW.6 from Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No.KA.05/MD-3958, in order to commit robbery - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 and assaulted him by means of iron rod, spanner, thereby snatched cash of Rs.3,500/- from using ATM card, using his phone and withdrawn money from various ATMs, from Yallapur, Udupi and Mudabidre in a sum of Rs.50,000/-? (ii) Whether the judgment of acquittal under appeal warrants any interference at the hands of this Court? 12. Before proceeding further in analysing the evidence led in the matter, it is to be borne in mind that it is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal of accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 342 and 397 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Therefore, the accused has primarily the double benefit. Firstly, the presumption under law is that, unless his guilt is proved, the accused has to be treated as an innocent person in the alleged crime. Secondly, the accused has already been enjoying the benefit of judgment of acquittal passed under the impugned judgment. As such, bearing the same in mind, the evidence placed by the prosecution in the matter is required to be analyzed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 (a) Our Hon9ble Apex Court, in its judgment in the case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka1, while laying down the general principles regarding powers of the Appellate Court while dealing in an appeal against an order of acquittal, was pleased to observe at paragraph 42(4) and paragraph 42(5) as below: <42(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. 42(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.= (b) In the case of Sudershan Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2014) 15 Supreme Court Cases 666, while referring to Chandrappa9s case (supra), the Hon9ble Apex Court at Paragraph 31 of its Judgment was 1 (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 415 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 pleased to hold that, it is the cardinal principle in criminal jurisprudence that presumption of innocence of the accused is reinforced by an order of acquittal. The Appellate Court, in such a case, would interfere only for very substantial and compelling reasons. (c) In the case of Jafarudheen and others -vs- State of Kerala, reported in (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 440, at Paragraph 25 of its judgment, the Hon9ble Apex Court was pleased to observe as below: < 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 Cr.P.C, the appellate Court has to consider whether the trial Court9s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.= - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 The above principle laid down by it in its previous case was reaffirmed by the Hon9ble Apex Court, in the case of Ravi Sharma Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another2 and also in the case of Roopwanti Vs. State of Haryana and others3. It is keeping in mind the above principles laid down by the Hon9ble Apex Court, we proceed to analyse the evidence placed by the prosecution in this matter. 13. The prosecution, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, has examined in all 9 witnesses from PWs.1 to 9. Initially, the prosecution relied upon the oral testimony of PW.6 3 Basavaraj, who is none other than complainant in this case. In his evidence, he has stated that, during the year 2010 he was working in BSNL Department, Karwar. His family was residing at Hubballi, hence, during holidays he used to visit Hubballi. On 13.08.2010 at 5:00 p.m., he was waiting for Bus in order to go to Hubballi at Sunksal Bus-Stand, where PW.7 3 Prakash and CW.9 3 2 (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 3 Air 2023 Supreme Court 1199 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 Deepak, daily wage workers of Sunksal telephone exchange were also waiting for Bus. PW.6 was holding a brief case. At that time, one black Scorpio came and an inmate of the said vehicle told PW.6 that, the Car proceedings towards Hubballi, if he boarded, they will give him a drop to Hubballi, however, PW.6 denied and told that he would travel by the Bus and thus shown his reluctance. However, one of the inmates of Scorpio vehicle alighted from the vehicle and forcibly took PW.6 inside the vehicle. At that time, there were seven persons inside the Scorpio including the driver and all of them together travelled towards Yallapur side. The Scorpio Car was proceeded towards Yallapur for about 4 Kms., thereafter the inmates of Scorpio, shown iron rod and spanner towards PW.6, assaulted him, removed Rs.3,500/- from his purse and Corporation Bank ATM card, a wrist watch, a mobile phone, searched suitcase for 10 3 20 rupees coins. They also made criminal intimidation to share his ATM pin number, or else, they would eliminate him. He further stated that, all the inmates put PW.6 in fear of death, put music in high volume and took him to Yallapur, where they - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 withdrew sum amount from ATM and again came back to Beleguli cross, then to Kumta, Honnavar, Bhatkal, Udupi, Mudabidre and Bantwal. The inmates of the said vehicle withdrew a sum of Rs.50,000/- at Udupi and Mudabidre from the ATM card of PW.6. 14. It is further evidence of PW.6 that, on 14.08.2010 at 2:00 p.m., the Scorpio Car reached Bantwal toll gate, where Scorpio was stopped for payment of toll, at that time, PW.6 called PW.2 - Yusuf Hyder, who was working in Toll Plaza and informed that the other inmates of the Scorpio kidnapped him and thus, PW.6 requested him to give information to the Police. Therefore, PW.2 and others, who were working in Toll Plaza, intercepted the Scorpio, hence, PW.6 came down forcibly, at that time, the Bantwal Police rushed to the spot, two inmates of the Scorpio, who took his ATM card, mobile and cash were escaped from the said spot and remaining five persons were brought to Bantwal Police Station, in the midnight. Hence, PW.2 lodged a complaint vide Ex.P.9 and drew mahazar vide Ex.P.3 and also seized - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 Scorpio vehicle and other material objects vide MOs.1 to 9 viz., iron wheel block, iron rod, screw driver, mobile phone and etc. His further evidence is that, he took amount from PW.3 3 Ashok Sudharshan Drown Achari and returned to Hubballi. Later, Ankola Police drew spot panchanama, where he was waiting for Bus and other places, where the accused persons took PW.6 to various places under Exs.P.1 and 2 3 panchanamas. PW.6 identified accused No.3 3 Azaruddin and accused No.4 3 Ibrahim Khaleel. But, PW.6 failed to identify accused No.1. PW.6 further stated that, accused Nos.3 and 4 did not harass him and they were sitting in the Scorpio vehicle without being any illegal activities. Hence, PW.6 was cross3examined by the prosecution. In the cross- examination, PW.6 expressed his inability to identify accused No.1. He categorically denied a suggestion that accused Nos.3 and 4 assaulted him with MOs.1 to 3. He further admitted that one of the accused by name Vinayak returned a sum of Rs.50,000/- to him. It has been elicited from his mouth that, somebody at the instance of accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 have paid amount of Rs.50,000/- to him. It shows - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 that, PW.6 failed to identify accused No.1, as driver of the Scorpio, accused Nos.3 and 4 as assailants, who inflected injury on his body with iron rods. 15. The prosecution in order to corroborate the oral testimony of PW.6, got examined PW.2 - Yusuf Hyder. In his evidence, he has stated that, on 14.08.2010 at 2:00 p.m., he visited the Bantwal Toll Plaza, in order to meet his friend Razaak, at that time, one black Scorpio came from Mangaluru side to Toll Plaza, was stopped for collection of toll, at that time, he saw PW.6, who was pleading PW.2, thus, he suspected behavior of PW.6 and with the help of the staff of Toll Plaza, intercepted black Scorpio vehicle, thus, the driver of the Scorpio alighted from the said vehicle and escaped from the spot. Immediately, he snatched away the key of the vehicle and he found five other persons inside the vehicle including PW.6. Thus, he and PW.6 informed the Police, who came immediately and took Scorpio vehicle and four inmates of the Scorpio and PW.6 to the Police Station. His further evidence is that, police drew panchanama and - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 seized MOs.4 to 9, mobiles phones of accused Nos.2 to 5 under panchanama vide Ex.P.3. However, PW.2 failed to identify accused No.1, 3 and 4, before the Court. 16. PW.3 - Ashok Sudharshan an employee of BSNL, stated that he was informed by his higher officer to visit Bantwal Police Station, where PW.6 was in police station and who was in dire need of money, thus, he went to Bantwal Police Station and saw victims and assailants in the police station and one Scorpio vehicle, where police drew panchanama, vide Ex.P.3 and seized 5 mobiles. But he has not seen accused No.3 and 4 in the police station. Hence, PW.3 failed to identify accused Nos.3 and 4. It shows that, PWs.2, 3 and 6 have failed to identify the assailants. 17. If an injured person is unable to identify his assailants, it can significantly impact the potential prosecution of the crime. The absence of a positive identification may make it more challenging to establish the identity of the perpetrator, potentially leading to the case - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 being dropped or the suspect being acquitted due to insufficient evidence. 18. In the present case, PW.6 is an injured witness. The testimony of an injured witness carries significant evidentiary value in legal proceedings, as such a witness is directly involved in the incident. Their evidence is generally considered more reliable and trustworthy, as they are less likely to falsely implicate others without compelling reasons to doubt their version of events. Further, corroboration from other evidence or other witnesses strengthens the testimony of an injured witness. The evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 6 is full of inconsistency, improbability and full of material contradictions. If there are significant inconsistencies or contradictions in PW.69s account, the Court may need to assess whether those inconsistencies undermine the credibility of the entire testimony. 19. So far as, other witnesses are concerned, PW.4 3 Raghavendra Govind Naik is a witness to mahazar, in whose - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 presence the police drew Ex.P.8 3 Panchanama and seized Mos.1 to 9. 20. PW.5 is Palanivelu K.M., Head Constable has stated that, he identified accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 as assailants and accused Nos.2 and 5 were among the remaining two. Thus, he being official witness has identified accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. 21. PW.7 3 Prakash Narasimhama Bant who had seen accused persons coming in Scorpio along with PW.6 towards Yallapur. His evidence is that, at Sunksal telephone exchange, when PW.6 was waiting for a Bus towards Hubballi, he was also waiting for Bus towards Ankola, at that time, he had seen black Scorpio came from Ankolal side and went near PW.6, thereafter the inmates of an Scorpio kidnapped PW.6 from the said place and taken him towards Yallapur. 22. PW.8 3 Mohammad Rafiq, PSI who received information and went near Toll Plaza, saw Scorpio vehicle, - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 where an employees of Toll Plaza and PW.6 had caught hold 5 accused persons, thus, he came to know about the incident through PW.6. Thus, received complaint and registered the case, arrested the accused persons, recorded the statement of witnesses and drew panchanama. 23. PW.9 3Shivanand Hanumanthappa Cheluwadi, Police Inspector, who investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused. 24. From the perusal of the prosecution evidence, it appears that, the entire burden is upon the prosecution to prove all allegations made against the accused persons. The prosecution though examined material witness viz., PWs.2, 6 and 7, so as to prove the commission of an offence by the accused persons but, PW.6 3 victim himself failed to identify all the accused persons, but he identified Scorpio vehicle. In the instant case, there is no recovery at the instance of any of the accused. The Investigating Officer has not recovered ATM card and mobile from the custody of accused persons. As per the evidence of PWs.2 and 6, the driver of Scorpio - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 vehicle was different person than accused No.1. If, that is so, accused No.1 was not driver of Scorpio and someone else, was driver of Scorpio vehicle, who was the person, who kidnapped PW.6 for ransom. 25. The material available on record clearly demonstrates that, there is material contradiction in the testimony of PWs.5 and 8. More importantly, there was CC.TV. Camera in the Toll Plaza, but the Investigating Officer has not recovered any CC.TV. Footages. Further, it is pertinent to note that, the accused persons have removed cash from ATM card of PW.6 at Yallapur, Udupi and Mudabidre. However, none of the ATM receipts have been collected by the Investigating Officer. Even, the Investigating Officer has not collected any CC.TV.Footages to explain that it was, accused persons withdrew money using ATM card of PW.6. Further, the Investigating Officer has not secured the material information as to whether PW.6 owns ATM card and he was having sufficient money in his account and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was withdrawn in ATM at Udupi, Yallapur and - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 Mudabidre. In fact, there was no recovery. Even, the evidence of PW.6 is taken into consideration, he has deposed against accused No.1 and not stated against accused Nos.3 and 4. According to PW.6, accused No.3 and 4 who were present in the Scorpio, but they never touched nor troubled him. 26. There is a clear lacuna in the investigation, so as to identity of the accused persons. He has not conducted any test identification parade so as to identify the accused persons. In the absence of material evidence, the Court cannot convict the accused persons. 27. Admittedly, the Trial Court acquitted the respondents of the alleged offences. Hence, there is double presumption in favour of the accused persons. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to them under the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence. The accused having secured their acquittal, presumption of their innocence is further strengthened by the Trial Court. Thus, if two reasonable conclusions are possible, on the basis of the - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7986 CRL.A No. 100287 of 2019 evidence on record, thus, the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court, should not be disturbed. Further, as stated in Jafruddin9s case as cited supra, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of Trial Court rendering acquittal. 28. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The Trial Court based on oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly acquitted the accused persons. Thus, it does not require any interference by this Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by the State is hereby dismissed. (ii) The judgment dated 18.03.2019 passed in S.C.No.48/2011 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar is hereby confirmed. In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending applications, if any, stands disposed off. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE EM/CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30