REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  382  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 9794 of 2017)

BANNAREDDY & ORS. …Appellant(s)

Versus

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

N.V. RAMANA,  J.

1.  Leave granted.

2.  This  appeal  by  special  leave  is  directed  against  the

judgment  dated  29th November,  2017  passed  by  the  High

Court of Karnataka, Bench at Dharwad in Criminal Appeal No.

100108 of 2014.

3.  Vide impugned judgment, the appellants were convicted

in the following manner-

i. Under Section 148 read with Section 149 of  the  Indian Penal

Code  (hereinafter  “IPC”)  were  sentenced  to  undergo  a  simple

imprisonment of 18 months and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default

of  payment  of  fine  they  have  to  undergo  further  simple

imprisonment for one month;

ii. Under Section 341 read with Section 149 of IPC were sentenced

to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days and

a fine of Rs. 200/- was imposed, in default of payment of fine

they have to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of

one week;

iii. Under Section 504 read with Section 149 of the IPC and have to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine

of Rs. 1000/- was imposed, in default of payment of fine they

have  to  further  undergo  simple  imprisonment  for  a  period  of

fifteen days;  

iv. Under  Section 326 read with Section 149 of  IPC,  each of  the

accused were sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of four years and shall pay a fine of Rs. 6000/-, in

default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of two months.

4.  Before we delve into the merits and analysis of the case,

it  would  be  trite  to  refer  to  the  Prosecution’s  case.  On

29.08.2008,  when the  village fair  was ongoing,  the  accused

no-2  (Dharmareddy)  picked  up  quarrel  with  P.W.2

(Hemaraddi), wherein the second accused threatened to finish

P.W.2 (Hemaraddi), but this was pacified with the intervention

of the persons present there. On the same day when P.W.5

(Sanjeevareddy), P.W.2 (Hemaraddi) & P.W.3 (Lingareddy) were

walking  to  the  house,  at  around  09:30  pm,  the  accused

persons armed with iron rods, clubs etc. approached them and

started abusing them and restrained them. Thereafter,  they

started  assaulting  the  victims,  viz.  P.W.5  (Sanjeevareddy),

P.W.2  (Hemaraddi)  &  P.W.3  (Lingareddy).  Certain  witnesses

intervened  and  rescued  the  complainant  and  other  victims

immediately. As the P.W.2 and P.W.3 were injured, they were

taken to Navalgund Government Hospital and later to KIMS

Hospital,  Hubli,  thereafter  they  were  transferred  to  the

Sushruta Multi Speciality Nursing Home.

5.  The complainant P.W.5, (Sanjeevareddy) gave a complaint

to the police which was registered as Crime No. 194/2008 on

29.08.2008 against the accused under Sections 143, 147, 148,

323, 324, 341, 307, 504, 506 read with 149 of IPC. Thereafter

in the morning of 30.08.2008, the clubs and iron rods were

recovered  from  the  possession  of  the  accused-appellant

Bannareddy in the presence of P.W.6 (Devareddy) and P.W.9

(Fakkirappa). On the same day the bloodstained cloths were

recovered from the possession of the accused appellant no. 1

in the presence of panch witnesses. The bloodstained clothes

were recovered from the possession of the injured Lingareddy

in the presence of P.W.7 & P.W.8. Spot mazhar was conducted

and sample of blood stained earth was collected for chemical

analysis in the presence of mazhar witnesses.

6.  The  trial  Court,  after  careful  perusal  of  oral  and

documentary evidence available on record, by judgment dated

18.01.2014, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed

to  prove  the  alleged  offences  against  the  accused  beyond

reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused were acquitted for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 504

and 307 read with 149 of IPC.

7.  Thereafter, the State preferred the appeal before the High

Court in Criminal Appeal No.100108/2014 against the above

order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, wherein the High

Court, by reversing the order of acquittal passed by the trial

Court,  had convicted the accused under Sections 148, 341,

504 and 326 read with 149 of IPC. Therefore, being aggrieved

by the above order of conviction, the accused appellants have

approached this Court.

8.  Before  us,  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the

appellants  contended  that  the  prosecution  case  is  full  of

contradictions and the material evidence available on record is

highly inconsistent and the order of the High Court, reversing

an order of acquittal, is unsustainable. Learned counsel has

also apprised us about the existence of a compromise entered

into between the parties, but it is not possible under law to

give  effect  to  the  same  and  compound  the  offence  as  the

offences charged are not compoundable under Section 320 of

Cr.P.C.

9.  Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf  of  the

State  supported  the  impugned judgment  of  the  High Court

convicting the accused-appellants.

10. Heard both the counsels. As the offences alleged are not

compoundable, notwithstanding the fact that the parties have

entered into a compromise, we will  deal with the matter on

merits.

11. Before  we proceed further  to peruse the finding of  the

High Court, it is relevant to discuss the power and jurisdiction

of  the  High  Court  while  interfering  in  an  appeal  against

acquittal. It is well settled principle of law that the High Court

should  not  interfere  in  the  well  reasoned order  of  the  trial

court which has been arrived at after proper appreciation of

the evidence. The High Court should give due regard to the

findings and the conclusions reached by the trial court unless

strong  and  compelling  reasons  exist  in  the  evidence  itself

which  can  dislodge  the  findings  itself.  This  principle  has

further been elucidated in the case of  Sambhaji Hindurao

Deshmukh and Ors. vs.  State of Maharashtra,  (2008) 11

SCC 186, para 13, wherein this Court observed that:

“……The  High  Court  will  interfere  in  appeals  against acquittals,  only  where  the  trial  court  makes  wrong assumptions  of  material  facts  or  fails  to  appreciate  the evidence  properly.  If  two views are  reasonably possible from the evidence on record,  one favouring  the  accused and  one  against  the  accused,  the  High  Court  is  not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the accused had it tried the case. The very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of  the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.”

12. It is not in dispute that the presumption of innocence is

further  reinforced,  reaffirmed  and  strengthened  against  the

acquitted  accused  by  the  judgment  in  his  favor.  [Vide

Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh vs.  Republic of India,

(2011) 2 SCC 490 in para. 94].

13.       In light of the above well settled principles, we would

proceed  to  examine  the  evidence  and  analyze  whether  the

intervention of the High Court in the order of the trial court

was justified.

14. At  first  it  is  appropriate  to  have  a  glance  at  the

statements of certain witnesses.

15. Siddappa Doddamani,  P.W.1,  stated that when he was

near the temple on the date of the said incident, he saw the

accused persons being armed with rods and clubs proceeded

towards the victims’  house.  Hence,  he followed them out of

curiosity,  and saw the accused abusing the victims. During

the said quarrel, the accused no.1 assaulted Sanjeevareddy on

his  shoulders  &  left  leg  with  a  club  and  accused  no.7

(Ramappa) assaulted him with a club by giving a blow on his

body.  The  accused  no-2  (Dharmareddy)  and  accused  no.8

(Venkareddy) assaulted P.W.2 (Hemareddy) with an iron rod

on his left shoulder and left hand. It was further stated that

other accused persons also assaulted the victims. Thereafter

he  along  with  P.W.14  (Vardhamangouda),  P.W.15  (Sunil),

P.W.16 (Yallappa), P.W.4. (Shivareddy), P.W.13- (Manjureddy)

&  P.W.6  (Devareddy)  intervened  to  rescue  the  victims. It  is

pertinent  to  note  that,  P.W.1  during  his  cross  examination

contradicted  the  above  statements  made  in  his

examination-in-chief.

16. The victim P.W.2 (Hemareddy) stated that on 29.08.2008,

the accused no.2 (Dharmareddy) abused him and threatened

to  kill  him in  the  evening  at  around 5 pm near  Hanuman

Temple,  but  this  was  pacified  by  the  intervention  of  P.W.4

(Shivareddy) and P.W.16 (Yellapa). But again at 9.30 p.m the

said accused persons apprehended the victims near the house

of P.W.14 (Vardhamangouda) and started abusing the victims

in  relation  to  the  pending  dispute  between  the  parties.

Thereafter,  the  accused  no.9  (Mallareddy)  assaulted  the

complainant-P.W.5  (Sanjeevareddy)  but  not  P.W.2

(Hemareddy).  Accused  no.1  (Bannareddy)  also  assaulted

Sanjeevareddy  on  the  left  palm.  Accused  no.7  (Ramappa)

assaulted Sanjeevareddy with a club on his head and other

parts  of  the  body.  Accused  no.3  (Hanamareddy)  assaulted

Lingareddy on his hands and head with an iron rod. The other

accused persons were dragging the victims towards the other

accused persons who were armed with clubs, who thereafter

assaulted  him  on  his  head  and  body.  Accused  no.1

(Bannareddy)  assaulted Sanjeevareddy on his  left  hand and

head  with  iron  rod.  P.W.11  (Maktumsab),  P.W.16  (Yellapa

Halawar),  P.W.14 (Vardhamangouda),  P.W.1  (Siddapa)  along

with others came to their rescue. He further stated that, as the

victims  had  sustained  injuries,  his  brother  Venkatareddy

shifted  them  to  Navalgund  General  Hospital  for  treatment,

thereafter  they were  transferred to the  KIMS Hospital,  after

being discharged from there, they were admitted in Shushruta

Hospital.

17. The trial court has rightly pointed out the contradictions

in  the  statements  given  by  P.W.1  and  P.W.2  regarding  the

incident  of  assault  and  the  participation  of  the  accused

persons. These contradictions are material ones and cannot be

overlooked.

18. Similarly,  after  the  perusal  of  the  statements  of  P.W.3

and P.W.5 we note that, there exist contradictions with regard

to the incident and the role played by the different accused

persons. The trial court has correctly arrived at a conclusion

on this aspect. Further, it is to be noted that, although the

above  witnesses  have  stated  that  there  were  several  eye

witnesses  to  the  above  incident who intervened to  stop the

assault,  except  P.W.1  (Siddappa)  and  P.W.13  (Manjureddy),

other  witnesses  have  turned  hostile.  Apart  from  the  other

victims, P.W.1 (Siddappa) remains the sole witness to the said

incident, but it is to be noted that the statements given by all

of them are not in conformity with each other, rather differ on

material points regarding the commission of the act itself. In

the light of this, it is not appropriate to place reliance on these

statements.

19. Another major contradiction in the prosecution’s version,

as rightly noted by the trial court, is the statement of P.W.14

(Vardhamangouda),  who according to the eye witnesses had

intervened in the said fight, as it was happening in the vicinity

of his house. But, in clear contravention to the above version,

P.W.14 states that he was out of station on the said date and

on returning back to the village at night around 11.00 pm he

came to know about the said incident.  

20. Although motive  becomes irrelevant  in  the  presence  of

direct evidences, however, the prosecution has submitted that

the accused and victims were from different political parties,

and political  rivalry  may be  the  motive  behind the  assault.

Although  the  victims  were  followers  of  P.W.14-

(Vardhamangouda), who was the chairman of the panchayat

at the time of incident, but surprisingly he has not supported

the case  of  the  prosecution.  Further  it  is  to  be noted that,

there  existed  prior  enmity  between  the  accused-  appellants

and the complainant victims regarding boundary of their land.

The  dispute  has  been  continuing  for  the  past  10-15  years

which could not be resolved even with the intervention of the

other villagers.

21.       It is to be noted that certain actions of the victims were

inexplicable drawing our suspicion specifically the behavior of

the victim after the incident. It is an admitted fact that after

the said incident the victims were taken to the Government

Hospital,  Navalgund.  As  P.W.5  (Sanjeevareddy)  sustained

simple  injuries  on  his  right  shoulders  thereby  he  was  not

referred for  any further  treatment.  P.W.2 and P.W.3 having

sustained  injuries  in  their  head  were  referred  to  the  KIMS

Hospital, Hubli for further treatment. But the trial court noted

that no documents or certificate regarding the admission or

treatment of the victims to this effect were placed on record.

The trial  court  rightly  pointed out that  P.W.19 (Dr.  Mithun

Sattur) who treated the victims both in the well reputed KIMS

Hospital and later in Shushruta Hospital, admitted that KIMS

Hospital is well equipped to treat the victims, then it is unclear

why were the victims asked to shift to Shushruta Hospital. No

documents  were  produced to  clarify  the  same.  The medical

evidences produced by the victims prove that,  they had not

sustained any fatal injuries. In such circumstances, it is quite

suspicious  as  to  why  were  the  victims  shifted  from  KIMS

Hospital to Shushruta Multi Speciality Hospital, particularly,

P.W.5 (Sanjeevareddy),  in spite of  not being referred by any

medical officer got himself admitted to KIMS Hospital and later

to Shushruta Multi Speciality Hospital. The trial court thereby

noted that the victims were trying to generate incriminating

evidences against the accused appellants.   

22. Coming further to address the guilt of the accused under

Section  149,  the  prosecution  has  failed  to  establish  the

involvement  of  all  the  accused  persons.  Although the  overt

acts of certain accused such as accused no.1 (Bannareddy),

accused  no.  2.  (Dharmareddy)  have  been mentioned  in  the

statements of the victims and other witnesses. But no  mens

rea or  actus reus could be attributed towards the rest of the

accused persons to establish their guilt under Section 149 of

the IPC.

23. The  trial  court  has  correctly  observed  that,  the

statements made by the mazhar witness regarding recovery of

material cannot be relied on, as they have turned hostile. Even

the  recovery  of  the  blood  stained  mud  seems  conspicuous

considering  the  fact  that,  the  given  date  of  incident  was

admitted to be drizzly and thousands of devotees had come to

witness  the  fair.  In  such  circumstances,  it  is  very  unlikely

that,  the  blood samples could have  been collected the  next

day.

24. The High Court has relied upon the statement of P.W.3,

wherein he stated that, rest of the accused were dragging the

injured to assist the other accused persons with weapons to

assault them. This allegation is very wide and made in vague

manner, the same is not supported by any other evidence. It

will  not be appropriate to rely upon the evidence of  victims

solely  to  prove  the  culpability  of  the  accused  persons.

Therefore  the  trial  court  has  correctly  held  that,  when any

overt  act  could  not  be  associated  with  these  accused,

provisions of Section 149 IPC will not be attracted.

25. The High Court has failed to take note of the fact that the

panchas  to  the  seizure  pachanama  have  turned  hostile.

Although the investigating officer seized weapons which were

identified by the victims and certain eyewitnesses, however, it

is pertinent to note the all the witnesses have turned hostile

except P.W.1 and P.W.13. Although P.W.1 (Siddappa) in his

cross-examination stated that he could recognize the weapons

in M.O.No.1 and No.2 as he has seen them, but contradicted

his own statement by stating that he could not say any special

features of the weapons used in the offence.  Further P.W.13

also recognized the weapons as the same used in the assault.

But it must be noted that, P.W.13 seems to be an interested

witness  considering  his  relationship  with  P.W.3.  In  such

circumstances,  wherein  the  panch  witnesses  have  turned

hostile,  it  is  not  safe  to  rely  upon  the  recovery  of  these

weapons  to  substantiate  the  guilt  of  the  accused  persons.

Further  we  are  suspicious  about  the  collection  of  blood

samples,  especially  when  it  is  an  admitted  fact  that  the

incident  took  place  on  a  mud  road  when  it  kept  drizzling

throughout  and  additionally  thousands  of  devotees  were

present in the village attending the fair. In the light of such

circumstances, the collection of blood samples seems unlikely.

26. In the present case, when the facts as to the incident and

the role of the accused could not be proved beyond reasonable

doubt,  whether  the  motive  behind  the  same  is  dispute

regarding boundary wall or political rivalry becomes irrelevant.

27. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,

we hold  that  the  prosecution was not  able  to  establish the

guilt  of  the  accused  persons  beyond  reasonable  doubt.

Further,  the  High  Court  should  not  have  re-appreciated

evidences  in  its  entirety,  especially  when  there  existed  no

grave infirmity in the findings of the trial court. There exists no

justification behind setting aside the order of acquittal passed

by the trial court, especially when the prosecution case suffers

from  several  contradictions  and  infirmities.  No  specific

assertion could be proved regarding the role and involvement

of  the  accused  persons.  Further,  certain  actions  of  the

victim-respondents  themselves  are  dubious,  for  instance

admitting  themselves  later  in  a  Multi-speciality  hospital

without proper cause. It has further come to our notice that

respondents have already compromised and have executed a

compromise deed to that extent, though the same is not the

basis for our conclusion.

28. Therefore, we set aside the conviction order passed by the

High Court and reaffirm the order of acquittal passed by the

trial  court.  The  appellants  are  to  be  released  from custody

forthwith.

29. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Pending applications,

if any, shall also stand disposed of.  

……….......................J. (N.V. RAMANA)

...............................J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER)

New Delhi, March 12, 2018.

ITEM NO.1504               COURT NO.9               SECTION II-C                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No.382/2018 @ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal  (Crl.)  No(s).  9794/2017 BANNAREDDY & ORS.                                  Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.                          Respondent(s) ([HEARD BY : HON. N.V. RAMANA AND HON. S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]) Date : 12-03-2018 This matter was called on for pronouncement of  judgment today. For Petitioner(s)

Mr. C.M. Angadi, Adv. Mr. B.V. Somapur, Adv.

                     Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR                  For Respondent(s)                       Mr. N.D.B. Raju, Adv.

Krishma M.N., Adv. Mr. Ajay K. Dutta, Adv. Mr.Joseph Aristotle S., Adv. Ms. Priya Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Ashish Yadav, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.

Leave granted. We set aside the conviction order passed by the High Court and

reaffirm  the  order  of  acquittal  passed  by  the  trial  court.   The appellants are to be released from custody forthwith.

The  appeal  is  allowed  accordingly  in  terms  of  the  signed reportable judgment.

(SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR)                             (RENUKA SADANA)      AR CUM PS                                   ASST.REGISTRAR       (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

17 1