2007 Supreme(Raj) 283
Supreme Court
Honble C.K. THAKKER, J. Honble LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.
Chandrappa & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 853 of 2006
Decided On : February 15, 2007
Sushil Kumar, Senior Advocate (Rajesh Mahale, Advocate, with him), for Appellants Sanjay R. Hegde, Anil K. Mishra, Vikrant Yadav and Sashidhar, for Respondent
Headnote:(a) Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec.378 – Appeal against acquittal – Power of appellate Court to re-appreciate, review, or reconsider evidence and interfere with acquittal – Following are the general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with appeal against acquittal – (a) Appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded (b) Cr.P.C., 1973 puts no limitation or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law, (c) there is double presumption in favour of the accused (i) presumption of innocence under fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law (ii) the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. (Para 42)(b) Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Power of appellate Court – Where two views are possible on evidence on record, one taken by trial Court in favour of accused should not be disturbed by appellate Court.
(2). Brief facts of the case are that Accused No. 2, Somashekhara, Accused No. 8, Thammaiah and PW 8 Krishnaiah were running a Chit Transaction in which successful members were given articles like vessels, watches, sarees, cloth-pieces, etc. The said transaction was conducted once a week in the shop of PW 8 Krishnaiah and also at Kollapuradamma Temple at Hanumanthapura. It is the case of the prosecution that on October 30, 1989, one such transaction was held at about 5.30 p.m. in which one Nagaraj, the successful bidder was given a copper vessel (Kolaga). Nagaraj returned the vessel with his maternal uncle as it was old and demanded a new vessel. But the request was refused by the proprietors of the Chit Transaction. It is further the prosecution case that at about 9.30 p.m. on the same day, i.e. October 30, 1989, near Hanumanthapura Bypass, when PW1 Veerabhadraiah along with PWs 2, 3 and 4 (Chikkanna, Rudramurthy and Puttiah) was proceeding, the Accused Nos. 1 to 8 who had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and were armed with weapons like, knife, reapers and stones attacked PWs 2 to 4. The accused caused injuries to all the three persons. It is alleged that when the quarrel was going on and PWs 2 to 4 were injured, deceased Anjinappa came forward and intervened and went ahead to stop the quarrel. Accused No. 8 Thammaiah took out a button knife from his pocket and stabbed Anjinappa on the left side of his chest, due to which Anjinappa slumped and fell on the ground. Complainant Veerabhadraiah along with one Krishnaiah, s/o Oblaiah carried Anjinappa in an autorickshaw to the hospital. On the way to hospital, Anjinappa breathed his last. The dead body of Anjinappa was then taken to the General Hospital, Tumkur. The accused persons after committing assault, threw the clubs and rippers at the spot and ran away. At about 11.30 p.m., PW 13 Madhukar Musale, Circle Inspector of Police, Tumkur received an information about the incident of rioting that took place at Hanumanthapura. On being intimated by PSI, PW 7 A.R. Shariff about the rioting and the injured being admitted to General Hospital at Tumkur, PW 13 went to the hospital and learnt that Anjinappa had died and the other three injured persons were taking treatment. It is alleged that PW 1, Veerabhadraiah, who was present in the hospital, was questioned by PW 13. The information given by him was recorded in writing as per Ex. P-1 as complaint and was registered as Crime No. 86 of 1989 for offences punishable Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused No. 7 Tukaraiah died during the pendency of the case and the trial abated against him.
(3). Inquest over the dead body of deceased Anjinappa was done and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. PW 11 Dr. Hanumakka who conducted the postmortem opined that the injuries were ante mortem in nature. She found a punctured wound over the left 3rd inter costal space extending from medial edge of the areola of left nipple obliquely downwards and medially 2" x 2" size with clean cut margin and fat protruding through the wound the depth of which was 3-1/2 inches. Likewise, injuries to PWs 2 to 4 were also proved by PW 12, Dr. Chandrasekhara Prasad.
(4). After completion of investigation, all the accused were charged for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.
(5). In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. PWs 1 to 4 were portrayed as ey