The conviction was quashed due to procedural irregularities, evidentiary failures, and bias in police investigations, highlighting the need for stringent adherence to legal standards.

ORDER :

H. P. SANDESH, J.

1. This revision petition is filed praying this Court to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 24.01.2019 in C.C.No.1005/2011 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC at Ramanagara for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 114, 324, 323, 504 read with Section 149 of IPC , which is confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.4/2019 dated 26.02.2020 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara and prayed the Court to acquit the revision petitioners.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Shankarappa S appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel Sri P. Prasanna Kumar who is permitted to assist the State vide order dated 24.03.2025.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that the complainant was working as Junior Officer HR in M/s. Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd., Toyota Techno Park, Bidadi and allegation is made in the complaint that the accused persons with an intention to take away the life had caused bodily injuries to their Senior Management staff on 19.03.2011 at about 10.30 p.m. The members of the unlawful assembly started protest inside the Company and gathered near first aid room of the factory and when its General Manager C.W.2 came to enquire the same, accused Nos.6 and 13 assaulted him with first aid box and window frame over his head and caused him bleeding injuries and other accused assaulted C.W.3 to C.W.7 with their hands and legs causing them simple injuries and threatened C.W.3 to C.W.7 and abused in a filthy language and destroyed the furnitures and glasses and attempted to snatch gold chain from the neck of C.W.7. Based on the complaint Ex.P1, case was registered in Crime No.173/2011. The police investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 114, 324, 323, 504, 506, 427, 356 read with Section 149 of IPC . The jurisdictional Magistrate having received the charge-sheet, in compliance with Section 207 of Cr.P.C., framed the charges for the above offences against the accused and the accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Hence, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.15 and Exs.P.1 to 11 along with M.Os.1 to 7. Exs.D.1 and 2 are marked for the defence, but the accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence.

4. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the respective submissions, convicted the accused only for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 114, 324, 323, 504 read with Section 149 of IPC and acquitted the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 427 , 356 and 506 read with 149 of and instead of sentencing them to the aforesaid offences, by exercising the power under Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, considered the case of t