Page 1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1381 of 2014  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)NO.4018 OF 2012)

C.K. DASEGOWDA & ORS.                 .....APPELLANTS VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA                    .....RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

 This  appeal  is  filed  by  the  appellants  

questioning  the  correctness  of  the  judgment  and  

final  order  dated  11.08.2010  passed  by  the  High  

Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal  

No.  1256  of  2005  in  setting  aside  the  order  of  

acquittal  of  the  appellants  passed  by  the  trial  

court thereby imposing sentence of conviction on the  

accused for offences punishable under Section 324  

read with Section 34 of IPC for causing injuries on  

separate count.

Page 2

Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4018 of 2012

2.   Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder  

to appreciate the case of the appellants and also to  

find out whether they are entitled to the relief as  

prayed for in this appeal.  

3.   It  is  the  case  of  the  prosecution  that  on  

11.8.1999,  at  about  7:00  a.m.,  PW-3  Kempanna  had  

gone to the house of the complainant on a bicycle to  

take milk for his children. When the complainant and  

PW-3 were coming back, accused nos. 1 to 10 (A-1 to  

A-10)  attacked  them  with  deadly  weapons.  It  is  

alleged by the prosecution that A-1 assaulted PW-3  

with  iron  blade  of  a  plough  on  his  head.  A-3  

assualted PW-3 on his back and thigh. A-4 assualted  

PW-3 on both his legs with iron blade of plough. A-2  

assaulted PW-1 with iron rod on his left shoulder.  

A-6, A-8 and A-10 kicked PW-1. A-5 and A-7 assaulted  

Bhagyamma- PW-6 with iron blade of plough and A-9  

kicked her.  

4.   A complaint (Ex.-P1) was lodged on 11.8.1999 at  

9:00 a.m. before the police.  The Crime Case No. CC  

728  of  2000  was  registered  by  the  Investigating  

- 2 -

Page 3

Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4018 of 2012

Officer. The injured were taken to the hospital at  

around  2:00  p.m.  PW-3  had  sustained  fracture  of  

tibia, fibula and ankle. PW-6 had sustained simple  

injuries. PW-4 Jalaiah and PW-9- Shivanna are the  

eye witnesses to the incident.  

5.   The  accused  after  their  arrest,  on  their  

voluntary instance, M.O. 1 to M.O. 3 (clubs), M.O. 4  

& M.O. 5 (iron blade of plough) and M.O. 6 (iron  

rod) were recovered. However, the said weapons had  

no incriminating marks like blood stains on them.  

The  accused  were  charge-sheeted  for  committing  

offences  under  Sections  143,  147,  148,  323,  324,  

326, 307, read with Section 114 of IPC. Thereafter,  

the  learned  Magistrate  took  cognizance  of  the  

alleged offences and registered CC No. 728 of 2000.  

The learned Magistrate complying with the provisions  

of Section 209 of CrPC, committed the case to the  

Sessions  Court  for  trial  since  offences  alleged  

under Section 307 are to be exclusively tried by  

that court. The accused persons pleaded not guilty  

and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its  

- 3 -

Page 4

Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4018 of 2012

case, got examined PW-1 to PW-10 and marked Ex. P-1  

to P-9 and MOs. 1 to 6. The accused-appellants got  

marked Ex. D-1 and had also submitted their written  

reply while recording their statements under Section  

313 of CrPC.  

6.   In the evidence, PW-1 has stated that A-2 had  

assaulted  him  with  iron  rod,  A-5  held  him,  A-1  

assaulted PW-3 with iron rod. He further stated that  

A-4 assaulted PW-3 on his legs with iron blade of  

plough.  A-3,  A-6  and  A-7  were  holding  clubs  and  

assaulting  PW-3.  A-1  instigated  other  accused  

persons to kill PW-1.

 7.  The evidence of PW-3 also discloses that A-4  

assaulted him with iron blade of plough on his legs  

and hands. A-6, A-7 and A-5 assaulted him with clubs  

on his back, thigh and shoulder. The other accused  

persons kicked him.  

8.   PW-6  in  her  evidence,  stated  that  she  was  

assaulted by the accused persons but she could not  

- 4 -

Page 5

Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4018 of 2012

name  the  persons.  This  witness  was  treated  as  

hostile.  

9.  The trial court, on appreciation of the evidence  

on record has held that the prosecution has failed  

to prove any of the offences alleged against the  

accused persons. There is an element of reasonable  

doubt  on  many  counts,  which  have  already  been  

explained. The benefit of doubt always goes to the  

accused. Accordingly, the trial court ordered the  

acquittal of accused-appellant nos. 1 to 10 under  

Section 235(1) of CrPC for offences punishable under  

Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307 read with  

Section 114 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the State  

of  Karnataka  appealed  before  the  High  Court  

challenging  the  judgment  and  order  of  acquittal  

passed by the learned trial judge.  

10.   The  High  Court,  on  the  basis  of  facts  and  

evidence on record, held that with regard to the  

nature of offences, the evidence and facts narrated  

in the FIR discloses that A-3 assaulted PW-3 with  

iron blade of plough. In the evidence, it is further  

- 5 -

Page 6

Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4018 of 2012

stated that A-4 also assaulted PW-3 with iron blade  

of plough. But in the wound certificate, there is no  

mention of presence or participation of A-4. It is  

evident that there are fractures in the tibia and  

fibula  which  could  have  occurred  because  of  fall  

from bicycle as well. The fracture injury is not  

caused intentionally. Therefore, from the nature and  

manner of assault, as narrated, it can only be said  

that the accused is guilty under Section 324 read  

with Section 34 of IPC for causing injuries to PW-1  

and  PW-3  on  separate  counts.  Therefore,  the  High  

Court convicted and sentenced the appellants to pay  

a fine of  10,000/- each on separate counts and in  

default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period  

of one year.  

11.   The accused-appellants challenged the decision  

of the High Court raising various facts and legal  

contentions and have prayed for setting aside the  

impugned judgment of the High Court.  

12.  The learned senior counsel on behalf of the  

appellants, Ms. Kiran Suri contended that the High  

- 6 -

Page 7

Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4018 of 2012

Court has erred in reversing the Order of the trial  

court  since  the  trial  court  had  acquitted  the  

accused-appellants only after proper appreciation of  

the  evidence  on  record  and  inconsistencies  and  

contradictions found in the evidence of prosecution  

witnesses and noticing the previous enmity between  

the parties, delay in recording the statements of  

the prosecution witnesses and also statement of eye  

witness, it has held that it creates a reasonable  

doubt as to the guilt of the accused.  

13.   The learned senior counsel on behalf of the  

appellants further contended that conviction of the  

accused-appellants  under  Section  324  of  IPC  read  

with  Section  34  is  absolutely  arbitrary,  

unreasonable and contrary to the above provisions of  

IPC.  

14.   It was further contended by the learned senior  

counsel  that  there  is  discrepancy  regarding  the  

names of the assailants in the FIR and in the wound  

certificate  and  further  the  motive  behind  the  

alleged assault by the accused-appellants has also  

- 7 -

Page 8

Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4018 of 2012

not  been  proved  by  the  prosecution  by  adducing  

evidence.  

15.   On  the  other  hand,  the  learned  counsel  on  

behalf of the respondent contended that PW-1 and PW-

3  are  injured  eye  witnesses.  The  fact  that  the  

accused-appellants had assaulted these persons with  

iron  rod,  gula  and  club  is  corroborated  by  the  

medical evidence of PW-5 and PW-7. It was further  

argued by the learned counsel that the appellants  

had assaulted the complainant on account of previous  

enmity with them. According to the learned counsel  

for the respondent, PW-2 is an independent witness.  

Therefore,  according  to  the  learned  counsel,  the  

ingredients of unlawful assembly, rioting, causing  

grievous  hurt  with  dangerous  weapons  with  an  

intention to kill, have been proved.  

16.   We have perused the facts and legal evidence  

on record. We have also carefully appreciated the  

contentions of both the parties. On the basis of the  

facts and evidence on record, we are of the opinion  

that the High Court erred in reversing the Order of  

- 8 -

Page 9

Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4018 of 2012

the trial court in the absence of any substantial  

material  evidence  on  record  which  regarded  the  

decision of the trial court as perverse.  

17.   In  the  case  of  Chandrappa v. State  of  

Karnataka1, it has been held by this Court as under:

“39.  In Harijana  Thirupala  v.  Public  Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., this Court  said:   

12. Doubtless the High Court in appeal  either against an order of acquittal or  conviction as a court of first appeal has  full power to review the evidence to reach  its own independent conclusion. However,  it will not interfere with an order of  acquittal  lightly  or  merely  because  one  other view is possible, because with the  passing  of  an  order  of  acquittal  presumption of innocence in favour of the  accused gets reinforced and strengthened.  The High Court would not be justified to  interfere  with  the  order  of  acquittal  merely because it feels that sitting as a  trial  court  it  would  have  proceeded  to  record a conviction; a duty is cast on the  High  Court  while  reversing  an  order  of  acquittal  to  examine  and  discuss  the  reasons given by the trial court to acquit  the  accused  and  then  to  dispel  those  reasons. If the High Court fails to make  such an exercise the judgment will suffer  from serious infirmity.   

40.  In Ramanand Yadav v.   Prabhunat Jha  this Court observed;     

1 (2007) 4  SCC 415

- 9 -

Page 10

Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4018 of 2012

21.  There  is  no  embargo  on  the  appellate  Court  reviewing  the  evidence  upon which an order of acquittal is based.  Generally,  the  order  of  acquittal  shall  not  be  interfered  with  because  the  presumption of innocence of the accused is  further  strengthened  by  acquittal.  The  golden thread which runs through the web  of administration of justice in criminal  cases is that if two views are possible on  the  evidence  adduced  in  the  case,  one  pointing to the guilt of the accused and  the other to his innocence, the view which  is  favourable  to  the  accused  should  be  adopted.  The  paramount  consideration  of  the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of  justice  is  prevented.  A  miscarriage  of  justice which may arise from acquittal of  the  guilty  is  no  less  than  from  the  conviction of an innocent. In a case where  admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is  cast  upon  the  appellate  Court  to  re- appreciate the evidence in a case where  the accused has been acquitted, for the  purpose of ascertaining as to whether any  of the accused committed any offence or  not".

41.  Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P.,  this Court stated;     8. While deciding an appeal against  acquittal,  the  power  of  the  Appellate  Court is no less than the power exercised  while hearing appeals against conviction.  In both types of appeals, the power exists  to  review  the  entire  evidence.  However,  one  significant  difference  is  that  an  order of acquittal will not be interfered  with,  by  an  appellate  court,  where  the  judgment of the trial court is based on  evidence and the view taken is reasonable  and  plausible.  It  will  not  reverse  the  decision of the trial court merely because  

- 10 -

Page 11

Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4018 of 2012

a  different  view  is  possible.  The  appellate  court  will  also  bear  in  mind  that there is a presumption of innocence  in favour of the accused and the accused  is  entitled  to  get  the  benefit  of  any  doubt. Further if it decides to interfere,  it  should  assign  reasons  for  differing  with the decision of the trial court".                    (emphasis supplied)

42.  From  the  above  decisions,  in  our  considered  view,  the  following  general  principles regarding powers of appellate  Court while dealing with an appeal against  an order of acquittal emerge;

(1) An appellate Court has full power to  review, re-appreciate 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  emphasize 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.

- 11 -

Page 12

Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4018 of 2012

(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  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.”

18.   Therefore, based on the legal principles laid  

down by this Court in the abovementioned case and  

applying  the  same  to  the  facts  and  evidence  on  

record of this case, we are of the opinion that the  

High Court erred in setting aside the order of the  

acquittal of the appellants in the absence of any  

legal and factual evidence on record to prove the  

findings and reasons recorded in the judgment of  

the trial court as perverse.  The contentions urged  

on behalf of the appellants are well founded as the  

- 12 -

Page 13

Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4018 of 2012

same are in conformity with the legal principles  

laid down in the aforesaid cases.

19.   We therefore, set aside the order of the High  

Court and reinforce the order of acquittal by the  

trial court.  The appeal is allowed.

……………………………………………………J.  [DIPAK MISRA]

       ……………………………………………………J.      [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

New Delhi,                                          July 15, 2014

- 13 -