TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 2007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsons. Further, certain actions of the Victim-Respondents themselves are dubious, for instance admining themselves later in a Multi-speciality hospital without proper cause. It has further come to 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. The conviction order passed by the High Court set aside - the order of acquittal passed by the trial court re-affirmed - appeal allowed. - Hon'ble Judges N.V. Ramana and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ. For the Appellant : H.N. Nagamohan Das, Sr. Adv., C.M. Angadi, B.V. Somapur and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. For the Respondents : S. Joseph Aristotle, Ashish Yadav, N.D.B. Raju, Krishna Bipin and Uday Dubey, Advs. 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 (hereinafte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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 Indian Penal Code. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ossible 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 v. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants. 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 Indian Penal Code. 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 allegati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
