- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10830-DB CRL.A No. 100430 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100429 of 2019 CRL.A No. 100216 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100430 OF 2019 (A-) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100429 OF 2019 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100216 OF 2021 IN CRL. A. NO.100430 OF 2019 BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, MARIYAMMAHALLI POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. S.P.P.) AND: MOULA S/O. KHASIM SAB AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. BALLARI, NOW RESIDING AT DHARMAVARAM GATE, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT (A.P.)-515801. …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 03/04/2019, PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BALLARI YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10830-DB CRL.A No. 100430 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100429 of 2019 CRL.A No. 100216 of 2021 SITTING AT HOSPET IN SESSIONS CASE NO.5011/2019 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03/04/2019, PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BALLARI SITTING AT HOSPET IN S.C.NO.5011/2019 AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.102 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 447, 435, 436, 427, 504 AND 506 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN CRL.A NO 100429 OF 2019 BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, MARIYAMMAHALLI POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. S.P.P.) AND: SANNA BAGAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: PLUMBER, R/O NEAR PONNARAJ HOUSE, BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 03/04/2019, PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BALLARI SITTING AT HOSPET IN SESSIONS CASE NO.5068/2018 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03/04/2019, PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BALLARI SITTING AT HOSPET IN S.C.NO.5068/2018 AND TO CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE 143, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10830-DB CRL.A No. 100430 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100429 of 2019 CRL.A No. 100216 of 2021 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 447, 435, 436, 427, 504 AND 506 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN CRL.A. NO 100216 OF 2021 BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, MARYAMMANAHALLI, MARIYAMMAHALLI POLICE STATION, BALLARI DISTRICT, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. S.P.P.) AND: 1. ANIL KUMAR S/O. DURGA PRASAD, AGED 20 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. COWL BAZAAR, GOLLARA STREET, DIST: BALLARI-583102. 2. PAVAN S/O. VINODA, AGED 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. RAMADURGA, BUS-STAND, DIST: BALLARI-581301. 3. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. RAGHAVENDRA, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. HAVAMBAVI, DIST: BALLARI-581301. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. BINDU GANALAVI FOR SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATES FOR R1-R3) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 (1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 07/01/2019 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI (SITTING AT HOSAPETE) IN SESSIONS CASE.NO.5008/2016 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 07/01/2019 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10830-DB CRL.A No. 100430 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100429 of 2019 CRL.A No. 100216 of 2021 (SITTING AT HOSAPETE) IN SESSION CASE.NO.5008/2016 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 447, 435, 436, 427, 504 AND 506 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) All the above appeals are filed by the State under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure1. The details of the orders impugned in the above appeals are as under: Criminal Appeal No. Sessions Case No. Date of impugned judgment Appellant Respondent (s) Outcome CRL.A 100430/2019 SC NO. 5011/2019 03.04.2019 State of karnataka Accused No.102 -Moula Acquitted CRL.A 100429/2019 SC NO. 5068/2018 03.04.2019 State of karnataka Accused No.55 -Sanna Bagappa Acquitted CRL.A 100216/2021 SC NO. 5008/2016 07.01.2019 State of karnataka Accused No.3 -Anil Kumar Accused No.14 -Pavan Accused No.21 -Chandrashekar Acquitted 1 Hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10830-DB CRL.A No. 100430 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100429 of 2019 CRL.A No. 100216 of 2021 2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the complainant is a lessee up to the year 2022 under a subsisting mining lease for mining iron ore (ML.No.2416) in lands bearing survey Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 of Vyasanakere village, Hospete taluk of Ballari District measuring 858 acres. That, M/s. S.B.Minerals and M/s V.Nagappa Mines were also mining lease holders in the said village adjacent to the property leased to the complainant. That, officials of the M/s Nagappa Mines used to encroach the mining areas of the complainant and various litigations were pending between the two lessees for the past 35 years. That on 13.05.2006 at 12 p.m., the accused formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting the employees of the complainant, causing damage to the properties of the complainant by use of force and violence and by holding lethal weapons, led by accused Nos.1, 99 and 100, the accused persons came to the mining areas of the complainant along with 600 persons and attacked the employees of the complainant causing damage to the men - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10830-DB CRL.A No. 100430 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100429 of 2019 CRL.A No. 100216 of 2021 and machines and also set fire to the same, as also abused with indecent words and assaulted the employees of the complainant i.e., CW.2 to CW.8. That the accused have committed mischief by setting fire to the machines of the complainant and also threatened the employees of the complainant. The charge sheet was filed in SC No.150/2007 against the accused Nos.1 to 102 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 447, 435,, 436, 427, 504 and 506(2) R/w 149 of Indian Penal Code2. 3. After registration of the case before the trial Court, non-bailable warrants were issued to the accused. However, since the number of accused were large in number, presence of all the accused could not be secured together and hence, as against the accused who have secured, trial continued and as against the accused who are absent, the prior was spilt up and continued by assigning another case number. Accordingly, the details of the case 2 Hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10830-DB CRL.A No. 100430 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100429 of 2019 CRL.A No. 100216 of 2021 numbers vis-à-vis, the accused who are tried under the respective cases is as under: Sl. No. SC No. Accused Acquitted Judgment Date Criminal Appeal No. 1 SC No. 5011/2019 Accused No. 102 – Moula 03.04.2019 Crl. Appeal 100430/2019 2 SC No. 5068/2018 Accused No. 55 – Sanna Bagappa 03.04.2019 Crl. Appeal 100429/2019 3 SC No. 5008/2016 Accused No. 3 – Anil Kumar; Accused No. 14 – Pavan; Accused No. 21 – Chandrashekar 07.01.2016 Crl. Appeal 100216/2021 4 SC No. 150/2007 Accused Nos. 1–19, 21–42, 44–50, 51– 66, 68–71, 73–84, 86–96, 98–103 12.01.2016 Crl. Appeal 100199/2016 Judgment on 5.1.2021 5 SC No. 89/2013 Accused No. 97 – Gagal Seena 09.09.2016 – (appears not appealed) 6 SC No. 5017/2019 Accused 7 (Jagdesh) and Accused 39 (Anil S/o Anjaneyalu) Ongoing __ * Accused No.101 is dead. 4. Vide judgment dated 12.01.2016 passed in S.C.No.150/2007, the accused Nos.1 to 19, 21 to 42, 44 to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10830-DB CRL.A No. 100430 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100429 of 2019 CRL.A No. 100216 of 2021 50, 51 to 66, 68 to 71, 73 to 84, 86 to 96, 98 to 103 were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 447, 435, 436, 427, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The judgment passed in SC.No.150/2007 was the subject matter of the challenge before this Court in Crl.A.No.100199/2016. 5. Vide judgment dated 05.01.2021, a co-ordinate bench of this Court while dismissing the appeals held as under: “31. On perusing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is evident that there is no cogency and consistency in their evidence about the charge leveled against the accused. On the other hand, their evidence is full of contradictions and inconsistencies about the material particulars. None of the injured witnesses has identified the accused. They have not stated about overtact of any particular accused. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is a general and vague one. It is only a omnibus statement regarding the assault, damage to the vehicles, machines - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10830-DB CRL.A No. 100430 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100429 of 2019 CRL.A No. 100216 of 2021 and setting fire to the office. On such omnibus statements, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 32. It is evident from the prosecution evidence that there is some civil dispute and ill-will between the MSPL company and Nagappa company about the area and the boundaries o f mining of respective iron ore mines. There is a business rivalry between them. This ill-will or enmity is like a double edged weapon, it cuts either way. It is evident from the prosecution evidence that there might have taken place some incident, a mob might have damaged the property of MSPL mines, but the prosecution has failed to prove any act involving the accused before the Court. The witnesses have failed to identify the accused before the Court. There is a lot o f difference between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. If from the evidence of prosecution witnesses two views are possible, then the view favourable to the accused will have to be accepted by the Court. On re- appreciation o f evidence in this case, we find that the possibility of falsely - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10830-DB CRL.A No. 100430 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100429 of 2019 CRL.A No. 100216 of 2021 implicating the accused also cannot be ruled out. 33. This being an appeal against acquittal, we do not find any error or infirmity in the judgment rendered by the trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed the evidence of each witnesses and come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence beyond all reasonable doubt and given benefit of doubt to the accused. 34. We are not inclined to interfere with the said finding for the reason stated above. The appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Registry to send back the trial Court records forthwith.” 6. In the judgments impugned in the present appeals, the trial Court after noticing the case of the prosecution, noticed that the evidence, exhibits and material objects were recorded in the main cases in SC - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10830-DB CRL.A No. 100430 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100429 of 2019 CRL.A No. 100216 of 2021 No.150/2007 and SC No.89/2013. The trial Court noticed the findings recorded by it in the judgment dated 09.09.2016 in SC No.89/2013 and recorded a finding that there is no reason to dissent from the order passed in the earlier cases. 7. It is clear from the aforementioned that the trial Court, noticing the acquittal of most of the accused in SC No.89/2013 has recorded a finding that there is no reason to dissent from the findings recorded in the said case. It is further pertinent to note that from amongst the persons who were initially arrayed as the accused, the trial against most of them were continued in SC No.150/2007 and the said accused persons have been acquitted, which acquittal has been affirmed by this Court as noticed above. No separate role is assigned to the accused who are the respondents in the present appeals vis-à-vis the accused who have been acquitted in the earlier criminal cases. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10830-DB CRL.A No. 100430 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100429 of 2019 CRL.A No. 100216 of 2021 8. It is also pertinent to note here that the judgment dated 09.09.2016 passed in SC No.89/2013 whereunder accused No.97 has been acquitted has not been challenged by the State. 9. At this juncture, it is pertinent to notice the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi Vs State of Gujarat3 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the fact situation wherein about 1000 to 1500 persons had gathered and certain incidents of assault, etc., had taken place and criminal cases were lodged against the 13 accused, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “15. When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity. This principle means that the criminal court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the 3 (2023) 9 SCC 164 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10830-DB CRL.A No. 100430 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100429 of 2019 CRL.A No. 100216 of 2021 court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination.” 10. Although, it is the vehement contention of the learned Additional SPP appearing for the appellant-State that the trial Court has not independently recorded the evidence in the criminal cases which are the subject matter of appeal, it is pertinent to note that the trial Court has recorded in the orders impugned in the present appeals that “both the counsels insisted the Court to adopt the evidence recorded in SC No.150/2007 and SC No.89/2013. Considering the peculiar situation and considering the fact that this is more than 10 years old case, this Court chooses to allow the public prosecutor to adopt the evidence, exhibits and material objects recorded in main cases i.e SC No.150/2007 and SC No.89/2013”. 11. Having regard to the fact that at the request of the learned public prosecutor as well as the counsel for the accused, since the trial Court has adopted the evidence, exhibits and material objects recorded in main case Nos. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10830-DB CRL.A No. 100430 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100429 of 2019 CRL.A No. 100216 of 2021 SC No.150/2007 and SC No.89/2013 to the cases whose judgments have been impugned in the present appeals and since the trial Court has specifically noticed the peculiar situation of the present cases wherein the incident was more than 10 years old as on the date of the impugned judgment, the procedure adopted by the Sessions Court in adopting the evidence, exhibits and material objects in the peculiar facts circumstances of the present case, cannot be faulted with. 12. Having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi3, the present appeals are liable to be rejected on the ground of parity also. 13. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the appellants have failed in demonstrating the judgment passed by the Sessions Court, is liable to be interfered with in the present appeals. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10830-DB CRL.A No. 100430 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100429 of 2019 CRL.A No. 100216 of 2021 14. Hence, the above appeals are dismissed as being devoid of merits. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE HMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1