The High Court cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction unless the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, emphasizing the importance of procedural integrity in criminal cases.

ORDER

The petitioner, being the complainant, has filed this revision petition challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 05.02.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and J.M.F.C., Moodabidri (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in C.C.No.555/2006. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated 11.09.2013 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore (henceforth referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A.No.30/2010.

2. The case of the prosecution hinged on a complaint lodged by the petitioner herein, that on 19.03.2006, the accused with a common intention to create commotion, entered the Church, where the petitioner was a Priest and when he was offering prayers, the accused No.1 held him by his neck, while accused Nos.3 and 4 assaulted with hands and accused No.2 assaulted him with a wooden stick on his neck, back and other parts of the body. The accused No.1 also assaulted Mr. Anthony Menezas, who tried to intervene, causing injury to his little finger of the left hand. The accused No.1 allegedly threatened to kill the complainant. A case in Crime No.42/2006 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The investigating officer took up investigation and seized the wooden stick, recorded the statement of the complainant, statement of Anthony Menezas, conducted a spot mahazar and thereafter, filed a charge-sheet accusing the accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the said offences and issued process to the accused. The accused appeared and they were released on bail. Copies of the charge-sheet were furnished to the accused and their plea was recorded. The accused denied the allegations and prayed that they be tried. The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.9 and marked Exs.P1 to P5 and a material object as MO.1. The statements of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C . who denied the incriminating evidence against them and produced certain documents in defence.

4. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the accused had filed PCR Nos.16/2005 and 17/2005, where they claimed that the complainant and the accused were at loggerheads as the complainant had constructed a huge house, which had 11 rooms for his use and occupation, out of the funds of the church, despite opposition by the devotees and residents of the village. The Trial Court therefore, held that the complainant and the accused were up in arms against each other. The Trial Court held that PW.1 was the complainant, who claimed that on 19.03.2006 there were 100 - 150 parishioners and that when he raised for an affirmation, the accused rushed to the dais and accused No.1 caught hold of him by his neck and threatened to kill him, while accused No.2 assaulted him with a stick. He claimed that when accused No.1 released him, the accused No.2 again assaulted him and when PW.1 tried to avoid being hit, his right hand was injured. He claimed that the accused No.2 also assaulted him with a stick below his chest on the left side and on the left side of his neck. He claimed that accused Nos.3 and 4 assaulted him on his back when accused No.1 had held him. He alleged that CW2 to CW8, who rushed to the dais, extricated him. However, accused No.1 caught hold of the little finger of CW.2 and twisted it, resulting in a fracture of his left finger. He alleged that the accused threatened to kill those who attempted to saved him. He claimed that he was taken to the hospital by CW.4 and CW.5, where his statement (Ex.P1) was recorded.

H