Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 1225
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
G.Basavaraja, J.
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Numan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1546 of 2019 (A)
Decided On : 07-11-2023
Kethan Kumar, Advocate, M.R.Patil, Advocate, Nithin Gowda K.C., Advocate
The principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the importance of reliable witness testimony in criminal cases.
Headnote:
ACQUITTAL - CRIMINAL OFFENCES - Sections 392, 397, 34 of IPC - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 392 and 397 of the IPC, which pertain to robbery and dacoity, respectively. It emphasized the necessity of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, highlighting the importance of reliable witness testimony and the presumption of innocence. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the accused and the recovery of stolen items, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident on 25/9/2016 where the complainant, Smt. Gulabi, was allegedly robbed of her chain by the accused, who threatened her with a knife. The prosecution presented 13 witnesses, but the trial court acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court found that the trial court had properly assessed the evidence and that the prosecution had not proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The testimonies of key witnesses were deemed unreliable, and the evidence of recovery was questioned.
Issues: 1. Whether the State has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal? 2. What order?
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court reiterated that an acquittal should not be overturned unless the trial court's findings are perverse or contrary to the evidence. The presumption of innocence must be upheld, and the prosecution's failure to establish a clear case against the accused warranted the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment of acquittal was upheld.
JUDGMENT
1. Though this case is posted for Admission, with the consent of Sri M.R.Patil, learned HCGP appearing on behalf of appellant - State, Sri Nithin Gowda K.C., learned Amicus Curiae appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Kethan Kumar, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, the same is taken up for final hearing.
2. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 20/3/2019 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru in SC No.34/2017 acquitting the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 392, 397 read with 34 of IPC.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.
4. Brief facts of the case are: On 25/9/2016 at about 6.15 a.m. when CW1 Smt. Gulabi was waiting at Sheenanna Katte Bus stand for some vehicle, the accused persons came in a motor cycle bearing No.KA.19.EH.3634 and accused No.1 came near her under he guise of asking about the distance to Durganagara and by the time CW1 replied to said query, accused No.1 all of a sudden snatched a chain in the neck of CW1 and when CW1 shouted by holding hand of accused No.1, he took out a dragon knife from his pant pocket and caused injury on the right hand of CW1 and then the accused persons fled the place on their motor cycle.
5. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the chargesheet against accused for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 397 of IPC. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The trial Court has framed charges against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Ss. 392 and 397 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses as PWs.1 to 13, got marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13 and also marked two material objects as MOs.1 and 2. On closure of prosecution side evidence, the trial Court has recorded the statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused have denied the evidence of the prosecution witnesses appearing against them as false. But they have not adduced any defence evidence on their behalf.
7. On hearing the arguments of both the parties, the trial Court acquitted the accused and passed the impugned order of acquittal. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.
8. Sri M.R. Patil, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for appellant-State has submitted his argument that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is contrary to law and evidence placed on record and the same is liable to be set aside. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8. The respondents/accused have not stated anything while recording the statement under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. The evidence of the complainant is corroborated with the testimony of PWs.2, 5, 7 and 8. On all these grounds he sought to allow the appeal.
9. As against this, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 and also the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for respondent No.1 have submitted their arguments that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial Court. On all these grounds, they sought to dismiss the appeal.
10. Having heard the arguments of both the sides and on perusal of the impugned judgment and order and the entire material documents placed on record, the points that arise for my consideration are:
"(1) Whether the State has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal?
(2) What order?"
11. My answer to the aforesaid points are : Point No.1: In the negative; Point No.2: As per final order.
12. I have carefully examined the impugned
