- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100209 OF 2020 BETWEEN: YANKAPPA S/O BASAPPA VADARATTI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALATIPPI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S C BHUTI, ADV) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY PSI, TERDAL PS, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. 2. PRAKASH S/O SIDDAPPA VADARATTI AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: 3. ALLAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA VADARATTI AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: 4. ASHOK S/O SIDDAPPA VADARATTI AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: 5. SIDDAPPA S/O VITTAL VADARATTI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 6. PUNDALIK S/O VITTAL VADARATTI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 7. BASAPPA S/O PUNDALIK VADARATTI Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: SECRETARY HALU UTPADKAR SANGHA, 8. VITTAL S/O BHIMAPPA VADARATTI AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 9. UDDAPPA S/O VITTAL VADARATTI AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALATHIPPI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI. 10. BEERAPPA S/O UDDAPPA VADARATTI AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS 11. SHIVANAND S/O BHIMAPPA VADARATTI AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, 12. BHIMAPPA S/O VITTAL VADARATTI AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 13. KAREPPA S/O UDDAPPA VADARATTI AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 14. MARUTI PUNDALIK VADARATTI AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 14 ARE R/O: KALATHIPPI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1. SRI. A.L SANDRIMANI & SRI. SANTOSH B RAWOOT, ADVS FOR R2 TO R14) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 372 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN SESSIONS CASE NO.39/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT TO SIT AT JAMKHANDI AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT TO SIT AT JAMKHANDI AT JAMKHANDI IN SESSIONS CASE NO.39/2018 DATED 06/05/2020 AND THEREBY CONVICT THE ACCUSED / RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 14 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 323, 324, 114, 354, 307, 504, 506 R/W SEC.149 INDIAN PENAL CODE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Criminal appeal is filed by the complainant under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.05.2020 passed in S.C. No.39/2018 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamkhandi. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as under: It is the case of the prosecution that, the complainant and the accused are distant relatives. On 07.04.2015, in the afternoon at Kalatippi village, the complainant, after cutting sugarcane, was transporting the same in the tractor on the cart track, situated between the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 land of the complainant and accused No.4, at that time, the maize grown in the land of the accused No.5 was damaged. At about 6:00pm, the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly, with a common object, by holding clubs in their hands, and scolded the complainant in filthy language, questioning him as to why he had destroyed the maize crops and accused No.1 with a motive to take away the life of the complainant, assaulted the complainant with the club on his head. Due to which, the complainant sustained grievous injury. When the nephew of the complainant and others intervened, the accused persons assaulted them with the club. When the wife of the complainant intervened, the accused persons outraged her modesty by catching and pulling her hand and assaulted by kicking on her abdomen. Accused Nos.5 and 11 abetted the other accused persons by telling them, not to leave them. Accused Nos.7 to 10, 12 and 13 abetted to finish them. The complainant lodged a complaint before the Terdal Police Station. The police have registered a case in Crime No.34/2015 for the offense punishable under - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 114, 354, 341, 504, and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigating officer, after investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the offences mentioned above. 3. The trial Court framed the charges against the accused on 25.10.2018. The accused pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses as PWs.1 to 13 and marked 14 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-14 and one material object as M.O.1. 5. The trial Court recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 19.03.2020. The accused have denied the entire case of the prosecution. The trial Court considered the entire material on record and passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 6. The complainant, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, has filed this appeal. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant learned counsel for the accused, and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that, the trial Court failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution. He submits that, the Doctors have issued wound certificates, which reflect that the complainant has sustained injuries, and the said injuries have been caused by the weapon used by the accused. He submits that, the accused had voluntarily caused bodily injury to the complainant and his family members by assaulting with their hands and clubs and thereby committed the offences. He submits that, the complainant has clearly deposed in his evidence that accused No.1 assaulted the complainant on the head and accused Nos.4 and 8 have assaulted and pushed the wife of the complainant and threatened them with dire consequences of life threat. He submits that, the trial Court, merely on the ground, that there is a case and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 counter case against each other, has passed the impugned judgment of acquittal without examining, as to who is the aggressor. He submits that, the trial Court has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is arbitrary and erroneous. With these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused submits that, the complainant has lodged a false criminal case against the accused persons. He submits that, the complainant tried to steal the maize crops, and he fell and sustained injuries. He submits that, the accused have not assaulted the complainant and his family members as contended by the prosecution. He submits that, there is a case and counter case between the complainant and his family members, and the accused persons, and he submits that, the prosecution has not proved that, the accused persons had an intention to take away the life of the complainant i.e., PW-1 and there is no evidence to that - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 effect. He submits that, the witnesses, who supported the case of the prosecution are interested witnesses. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Perused the records, and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. 11. The points, that arise for our consideration are: (i) Whether the judgment and order of acquittal passed in S.C. No.39/2018 by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 148, 323, 324, 114, 354, 307, 506 and 504 read with Section 149 of IPC is based on proper appreciation of evidence and as such, is liable to be sustained? (ii) What order? ” 12. Point (i): The learned Sessions Judge has charged the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 148, 323, 324, 307, 114, 354, 341, 506, and 504 read with Section 149 of IPC. Based on the charge-sheet material, the learned Sessions Judge has - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 framed the charge on 25.10.2018. A plain reading of the charge framed against the accused is that: “The accused with an intention to take away the life of the complainant, accused No.1 assaulted on the head of the complainant and the accused persons have formed unlawful assembly by holding clubs in their hands and scolded the complainant in filthy language. The complainant came to the police station and lodged the complaint and on the strength of the complaint, a case came to be registered against the accused persons in Crime No.34/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 148, 323, 324, 307, 114, 354, 341, 506 and 504 read with Section 149 of IPC.” 13. The prosecution examined the complainant as PW.1, who has deposed that, the accused are his relatives and about 5 years back, he was moving with a tractor and it caused damage to the crops of accused No.3. He was ready and willing to pay the accused to rectify the damage, however, the accused assaulted him by hitting on his head. Accused No.5 assaulted his brother and also outraged the modesty of his wife by pulling her hand. The - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 complainant-PW.1 lodged the complaint-Ex.P.1. During the cross-examination, it was suggested to PW.1 that while stealing maize crops, complainant fell and got injured and there was no dispute between the accused and PW.1 and his family members. The said suggestions were denied by PW.1. PW.2 is a pancha. He has deposed that the police have called him for drawing panchanama. PW.2 deposed that he knows CW-4-Mahadeva Reddy i.e. PW.3 and CW.11-Hanamant Siddappa Vadaratti i.e., PW.8. Ex.P-2 was confronted to PW.2 and his signature is marked as Ex.P-2(a). During the cross-examination, it was suggested to PW.2 that he has no full knowledge of panchanama drawn as per Ex.P-2. The said suggestion was denied. PW.3-CW.4 i.e. one Mahadev Reddy. He has deposed that, he knows PW.8-CW.11. Photograph was confronted to him. He has stated that, he is seen in the photograph and the said photograph is marked as Ex.P-3 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 and in the said photograph, PW.8 (CW.11) is also seen and he identified his thumb impression on the photograph and the said panchanama was drawn five years back. He has deposed that, he did not know why the police had called him and at that time it was about 2.00 pm. It was suggested to PW.3 that, without knowing the contents of Ex.P-2, he had affixed his thumb impression on Ex.P-2. PW.4 is one Anand Vadaratti. He has deposed that about five years back at 4:00 pm, when he was carrying sugarcane in a tractor some portion of maize crop grown in the land of the accused got destroyed and at about 6:00 pm the accused started questioning them by using filthy words. The accused hit the complainant-PW.1 with wooden club and assaulted PW.1 and kicked on the stomach of PW.9. Accused No.9 was holding him and accused Nos.3 to 10 were assaulting the him with their hands and others were giving life threats. In the course of cross-examination, he denied that there is no path way/road to their land and it was suggested that, the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 complainant was stealing the maize crop and he was caught. The said suggestion was denied and further, it is suggested that, the complainant tried to steal the maize crop from the land of the accused and fell. The said suggestion was denied. PW.5 is one Pundaleek. He has deposed that the accused assaulted him and he sustained injuries. He identified M.O.1 and he has deposed that the Police took him to the Government Hospital. PW.6 is one Shankar Vadaratti. He has deposed that, about 5 years back, at about, 6:30 pm, the accused were quarreling with the complainant and accused No.1 hit the complainant and accused No.2 hit PW.5 on his head, and other accused have threatened with life. In the cross- examination, he has deposed that said incident took place in Sy.No.57, and the said land belongs to the accused. It was suggested to PW.6 that, while stealing maize crops they fell and got injured. The said suggestion was denied. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 PW-7 is Ganapati Vadaratti. He has deposed that, about 4 to 5 years back at 6’O clock, the complainant was carrying sugarcane in the tractor and the driver of the tractor caused damage to the maize crop grown in the land of the accused. PW-8 is one Hanamant Vadaratti. He has deposed that, he has not seen Galata between the accused and the complainant and he has deposed that, he has not given any statement before the police. Ex.P-3 was confronted to PW.8. He has stated that, he is seen in the photograph i.e. Ex.P.3. This witness has turned hostile, and he was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. PW.9 is Smt.Suvarna, who is the wife of the complainant. She has deposed that about 5 years back at 4:00 pm they had cut the sugarcane and loaded it in the tractor. At that time, the accused came to the land and started quarreling with the complainant, and accused No.2 hit PW.9, accused No.4, and accused No.8 pulled her and kicked her on the stomach and the complainant was - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 bleeding. She has deposed that, she gave a statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, and her statement is marked as Ex.P.5. PW.10 is one Sri. Mallappa. He has deposed that, he was working as a constable in the Terdal Police Station from 2014 till 28.05.2015. On 08.04.2015, he was in the Police Station. At 3:00 pm he received an information from the private hospital and he proceeded to the hospital and he saw that the complainant had sustained injuries and a complaint was drafted through Ningapa i.e. CW.10, and after returning to the Police Station, he registered a crime in FIR No.34/2015 and he forwarded a copy of the FIR to the Court. The complaint was confronted to him and he identified the signature of the complainant as Ex.P1(a) and further the First Information Report was confronted to him and it is marked as Ex.P-6 and his signature is marked as Ex.P-6(a) and on the same day, the accused was produced before him and he has prepared - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 a report as per Ex.P-7 and his signature was marked as Ex.P-7(a) and the accused have admitted that they have committed an offence and accordingly, he has filed a charge-sheet. During the cross-examination, it was elicited that, in Panchanama, he had not mentioned the survey number and that Padma Hospital is situated beside the police station. He admits that, he has not mentioned the registration number of the tractor. It is elicited that, he is unable to say that, in which survey number panchanama was drawn. It was suggested that, to help the complainant, he has lodged a false complaint and filed a charge-sheet. He has denied the said suggestion. PW.11 is Doctor-Vishalakshi. She has deposed that, on 07.04.2015 at about 8:00 pm the complainant came to the hospital and took treatment and he had suffered an injury, and a wound certificate was issued as per Ex.P-9. It was elicited that the said injury may be caused due to fall on the hard surface. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 PW.12 is Doctor Mahaveer Danigond. He has deposed that, he treated the complainant on 07.04.2015 at 9:45 pm and he had issued the wound certificate as per Exs.P-12 and P-13. It is elicited that, the said injury may be sustained due to a fall on a hard surface. PW-13 is the Investigating Officer, who has stated that, he has worked as a Police Inspector in Terdal Police Station from September 2013 till August 2016 and he took up the investigation on 26.06.2015. He has deposed that, PWs.1, 5 and PW-9-Suvarna had sustained injuries. He has collected the wound certificates from the Doctor marked as Exs.P-12 to P-14. He has deposed that, on 17.07.2015, he has collected the wound certificates of CWs.1 and 5 from the Government Hospital and the said wound certificates are marked as Exs.P-9 to P-10, and his signature is marked as Exs.P-9(b) and P-10(b). He had seized 3 wooden clubs and were sent to the hospital, and he had collected the opinion/report, which is marked as Ex.P-11 and his signature is marked as Ex.P-11(b). It is - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 elicited that, he has not seized the tractor. He has not seized the articles loaded in the tractor and he has not collected the Record of Rights about the land in which the alleged incident took place. He pleads ignorance that the said land is an irrigated land and pleads ignorance that near Mahalingapura road, there is a canal and from the said canal, which passes through the land of the accused, the accused are drawing water and cultivating their land. 14. From the perusal of the records, it discloses that the accused had also lodged a complaint against the complainant herein. PW.2 and 3 are the witnesses to the mahazar and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-8 is the son of the senior uncle of PW.1 and he has not supported the case of the Prosecution. PWs.1 and 4 to 7 are interested witnesses and none of the witnesses have stated that the accused persons assaulted PW.1 to take away his life. Initially, a case was registered against accused persons for an offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC for having caused the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 grievous injury but as per the wound certificate, marked as Ex.P-9, which discloses that PW.1 had sustained a simple injury and hence, the charge under Section 326 of IPC was deleted. 15. From the perusal of the entire evidence of the prosecution, none of the witnesses have deposed that the accused persons have used a sharp object to assault PW.1, intending to commit murder of the complainant. It is well-established principle that, in a case and counter case, in the final report of both cases, the Investigating Officer has to necessarily furnish all the documents pertaining to the other case and should explain the genesis of the incident explaining whether it is a free fight between two persons/groups and that both are aggressors. The Investigating Officer should state whether one of the groups/persons is an aggressor and that whether the other has caused injuries in exercise of the right of private defence. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 16. From the perusal of the evidence of PW.13, it does not disclose which group is an aggressor. 17. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that, the accused had lodged a complaint against the complainant and a criminal case was registered against the complainant and the said criminal case was ended in acquittal. 18. From the perusal of the records produced by the prosecution, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the complainant and his witnesses, while committing theft of maize crop in their land, fell and sustained injuries. There is no worn in the defence of the accused persons. Further, what is to be considered here is, that there is a case and counter case between the complainant and his family members and the accused persons. There was no intention on the part of the accused persons to take away the life of PW.1 and there is no evidence to that effect. The witnesses, who have supported the case of the - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 prosecution, are all related witnesses and PW.2 is the brother of PW.1 and he has turned hostile, and further, the case was not registered on the date of the incident. Hence, it creates a doubt about the occurrence of the incident. The trial Court has recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. 18. It is a settled principle of law that when the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the evidence of the injured witnesses, having sufficient reason to have a grudge against the accused in connection with the civil dispute, it is not sufficient enough to base the guilt of the accused, it would not be proper for the Appellate Court to interfere with the case. It is also relevant to note that the accused will have a presumption of innocence and it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond such reasonable doubt. When the accused have a verdict of acquittal in their favour by the trial Court, which had the advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 and the manner in which they depose before the Court, the presumption of innocence against the accused gets fortified and as such, the Appellate Court should be too cautious while interfering in the same. This principle has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in several of its decisions and a chronicle of all those decisions has been reiterated and referred to in a recent judgment in the case of Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT, Delhi) and Another1. Referring to the decision in the case of Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala2 it was held, at para 8, as below: "8. Before venturing into the merits of the case, we would like to reiterate the scope of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) while deciding an appeal by the High Court, as the position of law is rather settled. We would like to quote the relevant portion of a recent judgment of this Court in Jafarudheen and Others v. State of Kerala (2022 SCC Online SC 495) as follows: "25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial 1 (2022) 8 SCC 536 2 (2022) 8 SCC 440 - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. 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". Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also reiterated its earlier observations in the case of Mohan @ Srinivas @ Seena @ Tailor Seena v. State of Karnataka reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1233 and at paras 20, 21, 22 of the said decision, it was held as below: “20. Section 378 CrPC enables the State to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal. Section 384 CrPC speaks of the powers that can be exercised by the Appellate Court. When the trial court renders its decision by acquitting the accused, presumption of innocence gathers strength before the Appellate Court. As a consequence, the onus on the prosecution becomes more burdensome as there is a double presumption of innocence. Certainly, the Court of first instance has its own advantages in - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 delivering its verdict, which is to see the witnesses in person while they depose. The Appellate Court is expected to involve itself in a deeper, studied scrutiny of not only the evidence before it, but is duty bound to satisfy itself whether the decision of the trial court is both possible and plausible view. When two views are possible, the one taken by the trial court in a case of acquittal is to be followed on the touchstone of liberty along with the advantage of having seen the witnesses. Article 21 of the Constitution of India also aids the accused after acquittal in a certain way, though not absolute. Suffice it is to state that the Appellate Court shall remind itself of the role required to play, while dealing with a case of an acquittal. 21. Every case has its own journey towards the truth and it is the Court's role undertake. Truth has to be found on the basis of evidence available before it. There is no room for subjectivity, nor the nature of offence affects its performance. We have a hierarchy of courts in dealing with cases. An Appellate Court shall not expect the trial court to act in a particular way depending upon the sensitivity of the case. Rather it should be appreciated if a trial court decides a case on its own merit despite its sensitivity. 22. At times, courts do have their constraints. We find, different decisions being made by different courts, namely, trial court on the one hand and the Appellate Courts on the other. If such decisions are made due to institutional constraints, they do not - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 augur well. The district judiciary is expected to be the foundational court, and therefore, should have the freedom of mind to decide a case on its own merit or else it might become a stereotyped one rendering conviction on a moral platform. Indictment and condemnation over a decision rendered, on considering all the materials placed before it, should be avoided. The Appellate Court is expected to maintain a degree of caution before making any remark. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also observed by referring to the decision in the case of N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamilnadu reported in (2021) 3 SCC 687, wherein, it was observed, at para 20, as below: “20. Mainly it is contended by Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the view taken by the trial court is a “possible view”, having regard to the evidence on record. It is submitted that the trial court has recorded cogent and valid reasons in support of its findings for acquittal. Under Section 378 CrPC, no differentiation is made between an appeal against acquittal and the appeal against conviction. By considering the long line of earlier cases this Court in the judgment in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, [(2007) 4 SCC 415] has laid down the general principles regarding the powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 acquittal. Para 42 of the judgment which is relevant reads as under: (SCC p. 432) “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 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 - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 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.” Therefore, this double presumption which is available in favour of the accused cannot be interfered with merely because another view is possible. The Appellate Court cannot interfere in a particular view adopted by the trial Court in respect of the testimony of the witnesses, which is based on the demeanor of the witnesses simply because another view as contended by the complainant is also possible. - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 19. It is relevant to note that in matters involving a case and a counter case, it is always desirable that, both the cases are tried by the same court, to ascertain, who is the aggressor in a scuffle involving two groups. 20. For the above said reasons and findings, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. The appeal deserves to be rejected as being devoid of merits. 21. Accordingly, we answer point No.(i) in the affirmative. 22. Point No.(ii): In view of the afore said discussion, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal filed by the complainant under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Consequently, the judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.05.2020 passed in S.C. - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:648-DB CRL.A No. 100209 of 2020 No.39/2018 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamkhandi, is hereby confirmed. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE Kmv CT: BSB