STATE OF KARNATAKA vs MAHAMAD GOUSE
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58241
CRL.A No. 1811 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010435242016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1811 OF 2016 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY DY S.P. UDUPI DISTRICT,
KUNDAPURA P.S.,
REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
AND:
1. MAHAMAD GOUSE ALIAS GOUSE,
AGE 22 YEARS,
R/O JAMIYABAD,
GANDHINAGAR,
BHATKAL TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT - 581 320.
2. AKBAR ALI,
AGE: 24 YEARS,
R/O ANKARAVALLI,
SORABHA TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 429.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRUTHVEEN KATTIMANI AMICUS CURIAL FOR R1,
SRI. N.M. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58241
CRL.A No. 1811 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010435242016
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C
PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND
ORDER DATED 11.04.2016 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DIST. AND
S.J., UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA) KUNDAPURA, IN
S.C.NO.20/2014 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT-ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399,402 OF IPC AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
State has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of
acquittal dated 11.04.2016 passed in SC No.20 of 2014 by the
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udupi sitting at
Kundapura (for short, the "trial Court").
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that Sub-
Inspector of Police, Kundapur Police Station submitted charge-
sheet against the accused 1 and 2 for the offences punishable
and Sections 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in
the charge-sheet that on 26.04.2013 at 7:10 pm, near
Hanuman Petrol Bunk, Vaderhobli Village, Kundapura Taluk,
accused 1 and 2 and another absconding accused Mohammed
Sameer, Mohammed Maroof, Alias Maroof, Jaffer Sadiq alias
Sadiq juvenile in conflict with law, armed with deadly weapons
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58241
CRL.A No. 1811 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010435242016
like iron rod, chilli powder coming on motorcycles bearing
registration No.KA-47/H-2344 and KA-47/J-5165, restrained
vehicles which were coming across the road, for committing
dacoity and thereby committed offence punishable under
Sections 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code.
3. After filing charge-sheet, case was registered CC
No.2166 of 2014. Thereafter, it was committed to the Court of
Sessions and was registered as SC No.20 of 2014. Accused
were enlarged on bail. On hearing, the trial Court framed
charges for the alleged offence. Accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused,
prosecution has examined 9 witnesses as PWs1 to 9, marked
10 documents as Exhibits P1 to P10 and 4 material objects
were marked as MOs1 to 4. On closure of prosecution side
evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC
was recorded. Accused have totally denied the prosecution
evidence appearing against them. However, they did not
choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. Having
heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court acquitted
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58241
CRL.A No. 1811 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010435242016
the accused. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of
acquittal, State has preferred this appeal.
4. Sri K Nageswarappa, learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the appellant-State, submits that the
learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of
PW5, PW6 and PW9, whereby the prosecution, by examining
these witnesses, has established that the accused formed
unlawful assembly and were preparing to commit dacoit by
holding weapons. Hence the prosecution has established all the
essential ingredients for offence under Section 399 of IPC. He
would further submit that in spite of this strong evidence, the
learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused which is not
just proper. He would further submit that the learned Judge
has also failed to appreciate the voluntary statement at Exhibits
P8 to P10 and the recovery of material objects 1 to 4 by the
investigating officer; and that the accused in their statement
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, have not offered any
explanation nor have denied the same in their cross-
examination. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the
appeal.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58241
CRL.A No. 1811 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010435242016
5. As against this, Sri N.M. Bhat, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents would submit that the trial Court
has properly appreciated evidence in accordance with law and
facts. Absolutely there are no materials to interfere with
impugned Judgment of acquittal.
6. Sri Pruthveen Kattimani, learned Amicus Curiae
appearing for respondent No.1 would support the judgment of
acquittal and submit that the trial Court has appreciated the
evidence placed before it in accordance with law and has
arrived at a right conclusion. He would also submit as to the
scope of appellate Court in interfering with the Judgment of
acquittals. To fortify his submission, he has relied on the
following Judgments:
1. CONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA SINGH AND
ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND -
(2025)5 SCC 433;
2. BABU SAHEBGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR AND
OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA - (2024)8
SCC 149;
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58241
CRL.A No. 1811 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010435242016
3. CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA -
(2007)4 SCC 415;
4. H.D. SUNDARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA -
(2023)9 SCC 581.
7. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on
perusal of materials place before this Court, the following points
would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the State has made out grounds to
interfere with the impugned judgment of
acquittal?
2. What order?
8. My answer to the above points are:
Point No.1: in the negative
Point No.2: as per final order
9. I have examined the material materials placed before
the Court.
10. PW1-Raghavendra has deposed as to the mahazar
conducted by the Police as per Exhibit P1. PW2-Vimalesh Shet
said to be the attester to mahazar has not supported the case
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58241
CRL.A No. 1811 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010435242016
of the prosecution. PW3-Sudhakara Kharvi, PW4-Ganesh
Devadiga said to be attesters to Exhibit P3, have not supported
the case of the prosecution. PW4-Mohammed Ismail is the
owner of the vehicle. He has not supported the case of the
prosecution. PW5-Augustine Kadras, Inspector of Police PW6-
Venkataramana Devadiga and PW9-Revathi Sub-Inspector of
Police have deposed as to the arrest of the accused as the
accused were suspiciously standing near Hanuman Petrol Bunk.
PW7-Ravi Ganiga has deposed as to the seizure of properties
under mahazar Exhibit P1.
11. On careful examination of the entire evidence on
record, the trial Court at paragraphs 23 to 25, has observed as
under:
" 23. So as discussed above, the basic ingredient
required to be attracted under Sections 399 and
402 of IPC do not fit with the evidence placed by
the prosecution. As discussed already, the
preparation of Ex P1-arrest mahazar in the police
station after arresting accused at Vaderhobli Village
itself is irregularities in the investigation because
the panchanama has to be prepared at the spot
where the accused were seem to be arrested,
where suspected accused were seem to be armed
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58241
CRL.A No. 1811 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010435242016
with deadly weapon with preparation to commit
dacoity or robbery on the road. But PW9 has
decided to prepare recovery mahazar in the police
station after bringing them back to the police
station and subsequently again prepared spot
panchanama report marked at Ex P3, this discloses
that Investigating Officer has totally conducted
investigation in irregularities not as contemplated
under Section 154 to 173 of Cr.P.C. Court has
already taken up discussion of the evidence of
panchas, who have partly supported the case of the
prosecution and PW2 has totally turned hostile to
the contents of recovery panchanama and deadly
weapons were seen to be not carried by the
accused, but they were concealed in two wheeler
introduces the fact that deadly weapon like iron rod
and chilly powder were concealed in vehicle itself
and they were not seen by eye witnesses itself is
disproved the offence under Section 399 of IPC
leveled against accused. Further more, it is the case
of the prosecution that some of the golden articles
were recovered from 1st accused on the basis of his
confessional statement at Bhatkal. But recovery of
these articles are not related to any crime
registered in their police station at Kundapura. The
recovery of such golden articles by Investigating
Officer PW9 have no significance and require
consideration in this case where the accused have
stood chargesheeted for the offences punishable
under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58241
CRL.A No. 1811 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010435242016
24. As discussed above, though PW1-Raghavendra
Mogaveera has stated that Ex P1 was prepared in
his presence and deadly weapon like iron rod and
chilly powder were recovered from accused
persons, but his evidence suffers from so many
contradictions and discrepancies as elicited in the
cross-examination. As per the prosecution case,
PW2 is also recovery panch witness to preparation
of Ex P1 in the police station, but he has turned
hostile. PW2 is the witness to recovery mahazar of
golden articles at prepared at Bhatkal from the
house of one Mubarak, relative of accused No.1 but
he has turned hostile. Panch witnesses to Ex P3 like
PW3 and PW8 have totally turned hostile to the
prosecution case and both of them have stated that
they have signed Ex P3 in the police station and not
at Hanuman Petrol Bunk. So, place of arrest of
accused is not proved. As discussed above, PW5
and PW6 are police official witnesses and PW4 is
owner of vehicle which were recovered from
accused do not need any consideration for
appreciation of evidence.
25. So to sum up, PW9, PW5 and PW6 are police
official witnesses, panch witnesses to arrest
mahazar -Ex P1 and seizure mahazar- Ex P3 like
PW2 has totally turned hostile. PW1's evidence is
considered to be not worthy in credence in view of
discrepancies elicited in his evidence and spot
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58241
CRL.A No. 1811 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010435242016
mahazar Ex P3 is not proved as related panchas
like PW3 and PW8 are totally turned hostile and as
discussed above, the basic ingredient of Sections
399 and 402 of IPC that these accused were found
to be armed with deadly weapon in public road for
preparing to commit dacoity is not established. In
the result, Court finds that accused are entitled for
benefit of doubt for allegedly being involved in
offence of preparation to commit dacoity.
Accordingly, the above points No.1 and 2 for
consideration are answered in the negative."
12. In the judgments relied upon the learned Amicus
Curiae the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the principles
governing exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with
an appeal against judgment of acquittal under section 378 of
Code of Criminal Procedure. It is observed that th e acquittal of
the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence.
The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal,
is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence
and it is required to consider whether the view taken by the
trial Court is a plausible view which could have been taken on
the basis of the evidence on record and if the view taken is a
plausible view, the appellate Court cannot overturn the order of
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58241
CRL.A No. 1811 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010435242016
acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible;
and can only interfere with the order of acquittal if it comes to
a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the
basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the
accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other
conclusion was possible. The interference by an appellate
Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the
trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised only if
the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity.
13. On re-appreciation, re-examination and
reconsideration of the entire material on record, I do not find
any legal or factual error in the impugned judgment of
acquittal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and also the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon
by the learned Amicus Curiae, I answer Point No.1 in the
negative.
14. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58241
CRL.A No. 1811 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010435242016
O R D E R
1. Appellant is dismissed
2. Register to communicate this judgment along
with TCR to the concerned Court.
3. Registry is directed to pay an amount of
Rs.10,000/- to Sri Pruthveen Kattimani. The
assistance rendered by the learned Amicus
Curiae in disposal of this case, placed on record.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
LNN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72