- 1 - CRL.A No.100171/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100171 OF 2024 (A) BETWEEN: MANJULA @ SANGEETHA W/O. MANJUNATH GOUDA AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. PVT. FIRM MARISWAMY MATT AREA, BALLARI, KARNATAKA-583101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.P. KANDAGAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . B. RAMANJINEYA @ RAMANJINI S/O. LATE MAREPPA AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST R/O. BEHIND HANUMANTHARAYA TEMPLE, RAYAPURA VILLAGE, TQ. BALLARI PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 1ST CROSS, KURIHATTI, SIRUGUPPA ROAD, BALLARI-582209. 2 . T. SOMASHEKAR @ SHEKAR S/O. T. CHIKKANNA AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST R/O. NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL THOLAMAMIDI VILLAGE, TQ. BALLARI-583101. 3 . POTHAPPA S/O. HANUMANTHA AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. HAMALI WORK, R/O. BALLARAPPA COLONY BALLARI-583101. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - CRL.A No.100171/2024 4 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE BRUCEPET POLICE STATION, BALLARI REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SOURABH A. SANDUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP. FOR R4; NOTICE R1 SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 CR.P.C. 1973, PRAYING TO, PASS AN ORDER CALLING FOR RECORDS FROM THE TRIAL COURT, AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 10.03.2023 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1, 2, AND 3 (A1 TO R3 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 201 AND 212 R/W. 34 OF IPC PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BALLARI IN SESSIONS NO.25/2017 AND PASS AN ORDER REMANDING THE CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT, AND DIRECTING THAT THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED BE RETRIED AFTER GIVING THE PROSECUTION AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND PRODUCING THE ADDL. EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 21.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - CRL.A No.100171/2024 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) Victim has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 10th March 2023 passed in SC No.25 of 2017 by the file of II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bellary (for short hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. Facts leading to this appeal are that the Inspector of Police Bruce Pet Police Station, filed charge-sheet against the accused or the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 212 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant got married to Manjunatha Gowda about 14 years back and she was recsiding with her husband. After five years, they shifted to Mariswamy Mutt, Bellary, and since nine years they were residing in the above address and they are issueless. It is stated that the husband of complainant was into finance business and he had sustained loss in the said business. Therefore, he had addicted to vices and had also become alcoholic. When questioned by the complainant in this regard, he used to pick up quarrel with her. On 30th November, 2006 at about 12:30 PM when the - 4 - CRL.A No.100171/2024 complainant was in the House of Basavaraj, brother-in-law of the complainant had telephoned her and informed that her husband is in serious condition and asked her to come near Nataraj talkies and immediately she went to the said place which is near Prathiba Wine Shop and found her husband's dead body with bleeding injuries. Therefore, she lodged complaint with the police for taking necessary action against accused in accordance with law. It is alleged that accused are guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 212, read with section 34 of Indian penal code. 4. After filing the charge-sheet, jurisdictional magistrate took cognizance and case was registered in CC No.268 of 2016 and after commission of case to the Sessions Court, case was registered in SC No.25 of 2017. Accused have obtained bail. On hearing charges, the trial Court framed charges against the accused for commission of alleged offences under Sections 302, 201, 212 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The same were read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. - 5 - CRL.A No.100171/2024 5. To prove the case of prosecution, in all, 23 witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 23 and seventy documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P70 and thirteen material objects were marked as MOs1 to 13. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against them and have not chosen to read any defence evidence on their behalf. Having heard the arguments, the trial Court acquitted the accused. State has not preferred any appeal against the said judgment of acquittal. However, victim-PW1 has preferred this appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Sri S.P. Kandagal, learned counsel appearing of the appellant would submit that the evidence on record is sufficient to pass the order of conviction against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 212, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has not considered both oral and documentary evidence in accordance with law. The trial Court held that the Investigating Officer, withholding CCTV footage which is the basis for initiation of criminal proceedings, has failed to produce the same before the - 6 - CRL.A No.100171/2024 Court, which is an error committed by the trial Court. Hence, he would submit that the matter be remanded to the trial Court for re-trial, after giving the prosecution an opportunity of being heard and produce additional evidence. Further, he would submit that if this Court confirms the judgment and order of acquittal, the victim is entitled for compensation as required under Section 357A of Code of Criminal Procedure and also under victim compensation scheme. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the appeal. 7. As against this, Sri Sourabh A Sondur, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/accused would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated evidence and record in law and facts and there are no grounds to remand the matter for re-trial. He would submit that absolutely, there are no grounds for interference with judgment of acquittal and hence he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Having heard the counsel appearing for the parties, and on perusal of materials, the following points would arise for our consideration: 1. Whether the impugned judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court suffers - 7 - CRL.A No.100171/2024 from legal infirmities requiring this Court to intercede? 2. Whether the victim is entitled for compensation as contemplated under Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure and victim compensation scheme? 3. What order? 9. Our answer to the above points would be as under: Point No.1: In the negative: Point No.2: In the affirmative Point No.3: As per final order Regarding Point No.1: 10. Before delving into consideration of the contentions advanced by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-accused, it is necessary to refer to the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope and power of Appellate Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. - 8 - CRL.A No.100171/2024 11. In the case of MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI & OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 676, at paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is held thus: “23. While considering the scope of power of the appellate Court in an appeal against the order of acquittal, after referring to various judgments, in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007)4 SCC 415, this Court summarised the principle as under:- “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of - 9 - CRL.A No.100171/2024 the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.” 12. In the case of MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS reported in 2019 SCC ONLINE 69, at paragraph 16 of the judgment it is held as under: “16. The High Court in the present case was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. In such a case, it is well settled that the High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because it opines that a different view is possible or even preferable. The High Court, in other words, should not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because two views are possible. The interference of the High Court in such cases is governed by well-established principles. According to these principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence - 10 - CRL.A No.100171/2024 by the trial Court is capricious or its conclusions are without evidence that the High Court may reverse an order of acquittal. The High Court may be justified in interfering where it finds that the order of acquittal is not in accordance with law and that the approach of the trial Court has led to a miscarriage of justice. …” 13. In the case of HARI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in 2000 SCC ONLINE 933, at paragraph 4 of the judgment, it is observed thus: “4. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan on the other hand contended that the power of the High Court while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal is in no way different from the power while hearing an appeal against conviction and the Court, therefore was fully justified in re-appreciating the entire evidence, upon which the order of acquittal was based. The High Court having examined the reasons of the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PWs 6 & 7 and having arrived at the conclusion, that those reasons are in the realm of conjectures and there has been gross miscarriage of justice and the mis- appreciation of the evidence on record is the basis for acquittal, was fully entitled to set aside an order of acquittal and no error can be said to have been committed. It is too well settled that the power of the High Court, while hearing an appeal against an acquittal is as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction and it had full power to re- appreciate the - 11 - CRL.A No.100171/2024 entire evidence, but if two views on the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal, merely because it feels that it would sitting as a trial Court, have taken the other view. While re- appreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the learned trial Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice.…” 14. In the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KISTOORA RAM reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE 684, at paragraph 8 of the judgment it is held as under: “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” - 12 - CRL.A No.100171/2024 15. In the case of MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2016)10 SCC 220, at paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is observed thus: “12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a competent Court after a full-fledged trial, and once the trial Court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on the appellate Court while dealing with the appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the power of the appellate Court to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon which the order of acquittal is passed. But the Court has to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate Court while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a conclusion.” 16. As it could be seen from the charge-sheet, forty witnesses are cited by the Investigating Officer and out of them prosecution has examined 23 witnesses. One Sangeeta is the complainant who is the wife of the deceased. 17. CW14-Basavaraj younger brother of the deceased and CW15-Mallikarjun Gowda, father of the deceased who have visited the spot after the death of are examined as PW2 & 3. They have not deposited anything against the accused. Even in - 13 - CRL.A No.100171/2024 the cross-examination, they have categorically denied as to the the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which are marked as Exhibits P2 & P3. 18. CW4-Nagaveni, said to the inquest mahazar witness examined as PW4. She has deposed in our evidence as to the panchanama conducted by the police. 19. CW11-Mahesha said to be the eyewitness. CW16-K Chandrababu, CW17-Veeresha, CW12-Anjaneya, CW25-T Jaganmohana, who have handed over the CD containing the footage captured in CC camera and transmitted to a hard disk. 20. PW5, 6, 7, 10, 13 and 14 are heresay witnesses. All these witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. Even in their cross-examination made by the Public Prosecutor, they have categorically denied as to the statement statements said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure which are marked as Exhibits P4, P5, P6, P7 & P8, P2, P3, P4 and P5 respectively. 21. CW9-Naveed, Tahsildar and Mahazar Witness examined as PW9 has deposed as to the mahazar conducted by police as per Exhibits P11 & P14. - 14 - CRL.A No.100171/2024 22. CW10-Koraraga Nagaraja said to be the attester to seizure mahazar, examined as PW11 has deposed as to the mahazar conducted by the police as per Exhibits P10, 11 and 24. 23. CW28-Pompanagouda, is examined PW 12. He has not deposed anything against the accused. 24. CW32-Dr Gururaj Biradar has deposed as to conducting of postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem report Exhibit P27. 25. CW30-Veeresh, Superintendent at Regional Transport Office, Bellary, examined as PW16 has deposed as to issuance of RC extract pertaining to vehicle number KA 34/EE 1935. 26. CW31-Ghousia Begum, Tahsildar examined as PW17 has deposed as to issuance of Exhibit P29, Khata utar and also issuance of letter as per Exhibit P30. 27. CW35-K Panduranga, Police Constable, examined as PW18, has deposed in his evidence as to submission of FIR to the Court. 28. CW34-Y Vijaybhaskar Reddy, HC No.142 of Bruce Pet Police Station, Bellary examined as PW19 has deposed as to - 15 - CRL.A No.100171/2024 submission of the material objects to the RFSL office as per the order of Police Inspector. 29. CW39-Srinivasa, Head Constable No.74, Gandhinagar Police Station, Bellary examined as PW20 has deposed that he has furnished the information pertaining to the accused in Crime No.495 of 2015 as per Exhibits P32 to P34. 30. CW29-Hanumanthappa, Regional Transport Officer Bellary examined as PW21 has deposed in his evidence as to issuance of ‘B’ extract pertaining to vehicle KA 34/W 7119 as per Exhibit P35. 31. CW38-Srinivasa and CW40-Sridhar Police Officers have deposed as to their respective investigation. 32. A perusal of Exhibit P1-complaint filed by PW1 Manjula @ Sangeeta reveals as to the death of the deceased. On the basis of his complaint, a case was registered on 30th November 2016 in Crime No.268 of 2016 against accused for commission of offence punishable under Sectopms 302, 201, 212, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Only during investigation, the investigating officer collected materials and submitted charge-sheet against accused 1 to 3. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the entire case of prosecution is based on - 16 - CRL.A No.100171/2024 circumstantial evidence and also on the basis of material piece of evidence, i.e. CCTV footage. Though the CCTV footage and the hard disc are produced, but while recording the evidence of Investigating Officer-PW 23, it was recorded by the Presiding Officer that due to technical defect, the hard disc containing the CCTV footage could not be played. The prosecution has not taken any steps to rectify the technical defects to place the CCTV footage before the Court in accordance with law. PW1 victim has not deposited anything against this. PW1 has further admitted that her husband was addicted to bad habits and was also an alcoholic and sustained loss in finance business. Further, all other material witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution, even PWs2 & 3 i.e. brother and father respectively of the deceased, have not supported the case of prosecution. The trial Court has considered all these aspects and appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective. Accordingly, the conclusion reached by the the trial Court is sound, well-founded and based on proper evaluation of evidentiary record. We do not find any legal infirmity or error in the judgment of acquittal under challenge. Keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions and for the Hon’ble Supreme Court, so also for the discussions made above, we are of the considered - 17 - CRL.A No.100171/2024 view that the impugned judgment of acquittal does not call for interference in this appeal. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 in the negative. 33. It is to be observed here that in view of the provisions of Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as well as Circular No. 4 of 2017 issued by this Court to all Judicial Officers across the State, it is deemed just and proper to direct the Member Secretary of the concerned District Legal Services Authority to assess and award appropriate compensation to the victim. Such compensation shall be disbursed promptly and in accordance with the statutory mandate to secure some degree of restorative justice for the victim/children of the deceased. Regarding Point No.2: 34. For the aforestated reasons and discussions we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R (i) Appeal is allowed in part; (ii) Judgment of acquittal dated 10th March 2023 passed in SC No.25 of 2017 on the file of II - 18 - CRL.A No.100171/2024 Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bellary is confirmed; (iii) Registry to send the copy of this judgment along with trial Court records to the concerned Court forthwith; (iv) Registry is also directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Member Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Bellary to award suitable compensation as required under Section 357A of the Cr.P.C. and ‘Victim Compensation Scheme’ after due enquiry to the legal heirs of the deceased. (v) The Member Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Bellary shall award the compensation to victim within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment in accordance with Victim Compensation Scheme. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn CT-CMU