THE STATE BY MALAVALLI RURAL POLICE STATION vs DODDEEREGOWDA

- 1 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026


PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

AND

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1239 OF 2019 (A)

BETWEEN:

THE STATE BY MALAVALLI
RURAL POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU.
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)







AND:

1. DODDEEREGOWDA
S/O BOLIGOWDANA SUBBEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/O. AMRUTHESHWARANAHALLI VILLAGE
MALAVALLI TALUK.

2. CHIKKEEREGOWDA
S/O BOLIGOWDANA SUBBEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O PETE OKKALAGERI
MALAVALLI TOWN.

3. SHIRAGA @ VENKATESH
S/O GUDULU HANUMEGOWDANA
NARASIMHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/O PETE OKKALAGERI
MALAVALLI TOWN.





Digitally signed
by G
SHREERAKSHA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


4.
RAMESH @ HANIKULLA
S/O GUDULU HANUMEGOWDANA
NARASIMHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/O PETE OKKALAGERI
MALAVALLI TOWN.

5. KARIYA @ NINGEGOWDA
S/O THAMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/O THAMMADAHALLI VILLAGE
MALAVALLI TALUK.

6. CHANDRU
S/O PUTTARAJU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEASR
R/O GULAGHATTA
MALAVALLI TALUK.

7. M.H. SWAMYGOWDA
S/O HANUMEGOWDA @
CHIKKAMOLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O PETE OKKALAGERI
MALAVALLI TOWN.

8. LOKESH
S/O BOKALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O AMRUTHESHWARANAHALLI VILLAGE
MALAVALLI TALUK.

9.
CHIKKEERAPPA
@ CHIKKEEREGOWDA
S/O HOTTEGOWDA @ EREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/O AMRUTHESHWARANAHALLI VILLAGE
MALAVALLI TALUK (DEAD-ABATED)

10.
RAJANNA @ TRACTOR DRIVER
RAMANNA
S/O NALANS KULLANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

- 3 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


R/O THAMMADAHALLI VILLAGE
MALAVALLI TALUK.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ S. SAPPANNAVAR, ADVOCATE
FOR R1 TO R8 & R10;
R9 DEAD & ABATED AS PER TRIAL COURT ORDER)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C
PRAYING THAT TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST
THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 23.07.2018 PASSED BY
THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA
IN S.C.NO.48/2010, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,147,148,341,307 R/W 149 OF
IPC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 07.10.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO)

This appeal is filed by the appellant-State seeking
the following reliefs:-
a) GRANT LEAVE to appeal against the
Judgment and order dated 23.07.2018, passed
by the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions
Mandya Judge, in S.C.No.48/2010, acquitting the
Accused/Respondent, for the offence punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 307 R/w
Section 149 of I.P.C.

(b) SET ASIDE the impugned Judgment and
Order dated: 23.07.2018, passed by the Court of
II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in

- 4 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


S.C.No.48/2010, Respondent-Accused acquitting
for the the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 148, 341, 307 R/w Section 149 of
I.P.C., by allowing this appeal;

And

(c) CONVICT AND SENTENCE the accused
respondent for the charged offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 307 R/W
Section 149 of I.P.C. in accordance with law, in
the interest of justice.


2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that PW.3-
Lingegowda is son of Javane-Gowda, who is the
complainant; PW.1-Karagunda, PW.4-Doddeeregowda and
PW.5-Chandru are the natives of Amrutheshwaranahalli
Village. Accused Nos.1 and 9 are also natives of the said
village, whereas accused Nos.2 to 8 and 10 are residents
of different villages. It is alleged that on 12.01.2009 at
about 7.30 p.m., a quarrel took place at
Amrutheshwaranahalli Village between CW.1-Ningamma,
wife of Karigowda and a relative of PW.4-Doddeeregowda,
and Chikkalingamma, wife of Bolegowda @ Subbegowda
and mother of accused Nos.1 and 2, in connection with the
uprooting of eucalyptus plants in the land of CW.11. In the

- 5 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


said incident, CW.11-Ningamma sustained injuries. PW.1,
PW.3, PW.4 and PW.5 took her to the General Hospital,
Malavalli, for treatment. After she received treatment,
PW.1-Karagunda and PW.3-Lingegowda proceeded
towards the village on one motorcycle, while PW.4-
Doddeeregowda and PW.5-Chandru proceeded on another
motorcycle. At about 11.00 p.m., when PW.4 and PW.5
were proceeding near Kyathanahalli Garibi Colony,
accused Nos.1 to 7 and others, armed with clubs and an
iron rod, intercepted the motorcycle on which they were
travelling.

3. It is further alleged that accused Nos.1 to 10
assaulted PW.4 and PW.5 with clubs and an iron rod on
their heads, hands, legs and other parts of their bodies,
causing bleeding injuries. PW.1 and PW.3 informed the
villagers about the incident over their mobile phones.
Thereafter, PW.7-Nagesha, PW.9-Mahadeva, Appaiah and
CW.6-Eraju came to the spot. On seeing them, accused
Nos.1 to 10 left the place, throwing the clubs and iron rod
at the spot and proceeded towards Malavalli in a luggage

- 6 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


auto-rickshaw. PW.1, PW.3 PW.7, PW.9, Appaiah and
Eraju took PW.4 and PW.5 to the Government Hospital,
Malavalli. According to the prosecution, accused Nos.1 and
2 assaulted PW.4 and PW.5 with the intention of causing
their death, as they were supporting CW.11-Ningamma.

4. On 12/13.01.2009, at about 2.00 a.m., PW.3-
Lingegowda went to the Malavalli Rural Police Station and
lodged a complaint as per Ex.P4, on the basis of which a
case was registered in Crime No.6/2009 for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 307
read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘the
IPC’ for short) . On the same day, PW.17, the PSI, visited
the spot and conducted a spot mahazar between 10.00
a.m. and 11.30 a.m., as shown by PW.3-Lingegowda in
presence of panchas PW.2-Srinivas and CW.12-
Doddathammaiah, as per Ex.P2. During the mahazar, five
eucalyptus clubs, one iron rod, one autorickshaw, a shock
absorber, and bloodstained and unstained mud were
seized. On the same day, PW.17 arrested accused No.4
and produced him before the Court and recorded the

- 7 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


statements of PW.1-Karagunda, PW.2-Srinivasa and PW.8-
Mariswamy.

5. On 15.01.2009, the PSI/Investigating Officer
recorded the statements of Mahadeva, Appaiah, Eraju and
Nagesh. On 17.01.2009, PW.11-K.M. Basavaraju, Head
Constable, recorded the statements of PW.4-
Doddeeregowda and PW.5-Chandru at KIMS Hospital,
Bengaluru. On the same day, PW.3-Lingegowda produced
bloodstained clothes of PW.4 and PW.5 before PW.17 at
the police station. PW.17 seized the said clothes by
drawing a mahazar as per Ex.P5 in the presence of
panchas PW.10 and CW.14. Accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 8
and 10 appeared before PW.17 pursuant to the
anticipatory bail granted by Learned Single Judge and
were released on bail. On the same day, the said accused
produced a luggage auto bearing registration No.KA-11-
7206 before PW.17, who seized the same by drawing a
mahazar as per Ex.P24 in the presence of panchas. After
completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer
filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 10.

- 8 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019



6. Upon appearance before the Sessions Court,
accused Nos.1 to 10 were enlarged on bail. The charges
for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 341
and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC were read over
and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. Accused No.9 was reported to be dead
on 14.06.2017, and the proceeding against him was
abated.

7. In order to substantiate its case, the
prosecution examined 18 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.18 and
got marked documents as per Exs.P1 to P28, and material
objects as per MO.1 to MO.14. On the other hand defence
side marked Ex.D1.

8. The statements of the accused Nos.1 to 8 and
A10 were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the CrPC’ for short) with regard
to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them
in the evidence. The accused denied the incriminating
circumstances and put forth a defence of total denial.

- 9 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019



9. The Sessions Court, upon hearing both sides
and on perusal of the material on record, passed the
impugned judgment and order acquitting the accused
u/s.235(1) of the CrPC of the offences punishable u/s.143,
148, 341, 307 r/w section. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant-State has
preferred the present criminal appeal.

10. The learned Addl.SPP appearing for the
appellant-State contends that Sessions Court failed to
properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the prosecution, particularly the testimony of
the injured witnesses, PW.4 and PW.5. Placing reliance on
the decision of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh
v. Naresh and Others, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324,
the appellant contends that the testimony of an injured
witness is entitled to due weight, as the injuries sustained
by such witness lend assurance to his presence at the
place of occurrence. Further the evidence of the injured
witnesses ought not to have been discarded in the absence

- 10 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


of cogent reasons founded on material contradictions or
discrepancies affecting the core of the prosecution case.

11. It is further contended that the Sessions Court
erred in attaching undue importance to minor
contradictions, omissions, improvements and
discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
Relying on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh and
Others, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324 , the appellant
submits that normal discrepancies may occur in the
testimony of witnesses on account of errors of
observation, lapse of memory or the mental condition of a
witness at the time of the occurrence, and that minor
inconsistencies which do not affect the core of the
prosecution case cannot, by themselves, constitute a
ground for rejecting the evidence in its entirety. The
appellant also contends that the Sessions Court erred in
disbelieving PW.8 merely on the ground of his relationship
with the injured witnesses, without properly examining
whether his testimony was cogent and credible. In this
regard, the evidence of a related witness cannot be

- 11 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


discarded solely on the ground of relationship and must be
assessed on its own merits.

12. The appellant further contends that complaint is
not expected to contain every detail of the incident and
that non-mentioning of the names of all the accused,
either in the complaint or in the medical history, is not, by
itself, fatal to the prosecution case. The appellant also
challenges the Sessions Court's reliance on the absence of
a reference to street lighting in the spot mahazar, Ex.P2,
and the discrepancies between the spot mahazar and the
oral testimony of PW.3 to PW.5 regarding the place of
occurrence, to disbelieve their evidence and conclude that
they had not seen the accused at the spot. It is contended
that the Sessions Court failed to properly appreciate the
testimony of PW.4 in conjunction with the medical
evidence of PW.15, PW.16 and PW.18, who treated the
injured witnesses, and erroneously concluded that the oral
testimony of the injured witnesses did not corroborate the
medical evidence. The appellant further submits that the
evidence of prosecution witnesses turning hostile could

- 12 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


not, by itself, justify rejection of the otherwise acceptable
evidence supporting the prosecution case. In support of
this contention, reliance is placed on Sheikh Zakir v.
State of Bihar , reported in AIR 1983 SCC 911 .

13. The appellant-State further contends that the
Sessions Court failed to properly appreciate the motive
alleged by the prosecution. It is submitted that, prior to
the incident in question, a quarrel had taken place
between CW.11-Ningamma and the mother of accused
Nos.1 and 2 in connection with the uprooting of eucalyptus
plants in the land of CW.11, during which CW.11-
Ningamma sustained injuries. PW.1 and PW.3 to PW.5 had
taken her to the hospital for treatment, and the
prosecution alleges that PW.4 and PW.5 were
subsequently assaulted because they supported CW.11-
Ningamma. The appellant contends that this circumstance
was not properly considered by the Sessions Court while
appreciating the prosecution case under Section 307 of the
IPC. Reliance is placed on State of Maharashtra v.
Muneer Ahmad Shaik, reported in 2000 (1) Crime

- 13 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


376, in support of the contention that the intention to
commit murder, rather than the nature of the injuries
alone, is material in determining the applicability of
Section 307 of the IPC, and that corroboration is a rule of
prudence whose necessity depends on the facts of the
case.

14. It is also contended the seizure of the alleged
weapons, M.O.1 to M.O.7, under the mahazar, Ex.P2, was
sought to be established through the evidence of PW.3 and
PW.17; that the seizure of the bloodstained clothes of
PW.4 and PW.5 under Ex.P5 was sought to be proved
through the evidence of PW.3, PW.10 and PW.17; and that
the seizure of the luggage autorickshaw under Ex.P24 and
the motorcycle belonging to accused No.1 under Ex.P17
was also relied upon by the prosecution. It is contended
that the accused had not seriously disputed the seizure of
the autorickshaw and the motorcycle. Placing reliance on
Neel Kumar @ Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana,
reported in (2012) 5 SCC 766, and Ramesh Harijan v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 777,

- 14 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


the appellant contends that the Sessions Court failed to
properly consider the evidentiary value of the recovery
and seizure proceedings, including the effect of seizure
witnesses turning hostile while admitting their signatures
or thumb impressions on the relevant mahazars.

15. Learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/accused would contend that the Sessions
Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence on record, has rightly acquitted accused Nos.1 to
8 and 10 of the offences alleged against them. It is
submitted that the evidence of the injured witnesses, PWs
4 and 5, and the evidence of PW3 and PW8 suffer from
material discrepancies and contradictions concerning the
identity and number of the assailants, the weapons
allegedly used, the manner in which the incident occurred
and the place of occurrence. The complaint at Ex.P4 does
not disclose the names of accused Nos.7 to 10, and the
histories furnished by the injured witnesses before the
medical officers do not consistently disclose the identity or
number of the assailants. It is further contended that PWs

- 15 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


1, 2, 6, 7 and 9, who were independent eyewitness turned
hostile and not supported the prosecution. In these
circumstances, the Sessions Court was justified in holding
that the prosecution had failed to establish the
involvement of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

16. It is further contended that the Sessions Court
has considered the medical evidence, the discrepancies
relating to the spot mahazar at Ex.P2, the alleged seizure
of material objects and the evidence concerning the
autorickshaw and motorcycle. Learned counsel would
submit that, although the medical evidence establishes
that PWs 4 and 5 sustained injuries, it does not, by itself,
establish the identity of the assailants or their individual
participation in the alleged offences. It is submitted that
the Sessions Court has rightly observed that the failure of
the defence to establish the suggested explanation for the
injuries cannot be a ground to convict the accused, as the
prosecution must prove its case independently. Placing
reliance on Chandrappa and Others v. State of
Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, learned

- 16 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


counsel seeks dismissal of the State appeal, contending
that the findings recorded by the Sessions Court constitute
a plausible view on the evidence and do not warrant
interference in an appeal against acquittal.

17. Heard learned Addl. SPP appearing for the
appellant-State and learned counsel appearing for the
respondent and perused the material placed on record.

18. Having considered the contentions advanced
and on perusal of the evidence on record, it is observed
that the accused, being members of an unlawful assembly,
restrained PWs.4 and 5 and assaulted them with clubs,
choppers, an iron rod and a shock absorber, with the
intention of causing their death. The prosecution has
examined PWs.3 to 5 and PW.8 in support of the
occurrence, apart from the medical and other witnesses.
The evidence of PWs.4 and 5 establishes that they
sustained injuries. However, the question is whether the
evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the

- 17 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


accused participated in the alleged assault and committed
the offences charged against them.

19. When examined at Malavalli Hospital, PW.4
gave the history of an assault with a rod and named
accused Nos.1 and 2. The history recorded in respect of
PW.5 at the same hospital did not disclose the names of
the assailants. Subsequently, the histories recorded at
KIMS Hospital referred to an assault by three persons.
These medical histories do not, by themselves, determine
the identity of the assailants; nevertheless, the differences
assume significance when considered alongside the
subsequent oral evidence implicating several accused and
attributing individual overt acts to them.

20. The complaint lodged by PW.3 also does not
refer to accused Nos.7 to 10. This omission assumes
importance because the prosecution subsequently sought
to establish the participation of these accused through the
oral evidence of the witnesses. PW.3's evidence regarding
his presence at the scene is also not consistent. His chief-

- 18 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


examination initially refers to PW.4 and PW.5 taking
CW.11 to the hospital, whereas his subsequent version
speaks of his having witnessed the incident while returning
from Malavalli. He has further stated that he was
frightened, watched the incident from a distance and
informed other persons. These circumstances, considered
along with the omissions in the complaint, create a doubt
regarding the extent to which his evidence reliably
establishes the prosecution case.

21. Though he partly supported the prosecution, he
denied the statement attributed to him that accused Nos.3
and 5 to 7 had assaulted the injured witnesses with clubs
and an iron rod. The prosecution's own case was that
PW.8 arrived after the assault, yet his subsequent
evidence sought to connect several accused with the
occurrence. The evidence of PW.8, therefore, does not
provide consistent and reliable corroboration of the specific
allegations against the accused. PWs.1, 2, 6, 7 and 9 have
not supported the prosecution case in material particulars,
and their cross-examination by the prosecution did not

- 19 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


elicit evidence sufficient to establish that they had
deliberately withheld the truth to help the accused.

22. PW.3 referred to an autorickshaw and
motorcycles, whereas the complaint does not refer to
motorcycles. PWs.4 and 5 spoke of a goods autorickshaw,
a Tata Sumo and a motorcycle. This difference cannot be
considered in isolation; it has to be assessed with the
other discrepancies concerning the number of assailants,
the weapons used and the participation attributed to
individual accused.

23. The spot mahazar, Ex.P2, does not record the
presence of streetlights. Further, PW.11, who recorded the
statement of PW.4, stated that PW.4 had not mentioned
the presence of streetlights in his police statement. These
circumstances do not conclusively establish that
identification was impossible, but they are relevant in
assessing the reliability of the witnesses' claim to have
identified the assailants during the alleged incident at
about 11.00 p.m.

- 20 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019



24. PW.4 stated that accused No.7 snatched the
shock absorber from accused No.2 and assaulted him on
the left leg, and that accused No.10 thereafter took the
shock absorber from accused No.7 and assaulted him on
the right leg. PW.11 denied that PW.4 had made these
statements in his police statement. Similarly, PW.5
attributed specific acts to accused Nos.2, 4, 6 and 8,
including assault with a club and the snatching and use of
a club, but PW.11 denied that PW.5 had made the
corresponding statements. These omissions concern the
individual participation of the accused and the weapons
allegedly used by them. They are material when the
prosecution seeks to establish the liability of each accused
as a member of the alleged unlawful assembly.

25. The complaint and the oral evidence of PWs.3
to 5 refer to Garibi Colony near the water tank, whereas
the history recorded at KIMS Hospital refers to
Kyathegowdanadoddi Gate near the milk dairy. The spot
mahazar does not refer to the milk dairy. Though a

- 21 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


difference in description does not necessarily establish that
the incident did not occur, the evidence on record does not
satisfactorily resolve this difference. It adds to the doubts
arising from the other discrepancies in the prosecution
version.

26. PW.17 spoke to the spot mahazar, Ex.P2,
prepared in the presence of PWs.2 and 3. PW.2 did not
support the prosecution case. PW.3, in his cross-
examination, stated that he had gone to Bengaluru,
returned between 2.30 p.m. and 3.00 p.m., and that the
police took the material objects at about 3.00 p.m. He also
stated that he and the injured had taken material objects
Nos.1 to 7 to the hospital on the day of the incident. These
versions create a doubt regarding the circumstances in
which the material objects were recovered. Though the
seizure of the autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-11-
7206 and the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-02-R-
1927 was spoken to by the relevant witnesses, the seizure
of a vehicle, without reliable evidence connecting it to the

- 22 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


commission of the alleged offences, does not
independently establish the guilt of the accused.

27. PW.16 stated that the injuries sustained by
PWs.4 and 5 could have been caused by the material
objects shown to him or by a fall from a fast-moving
motorcycle on a road hump. PW.15 also stated that the
injuries noted by him could have been caused by the
material objects and that they could have resulted from a
fall from a fast-moving motorcycle on a road hump. Thus,
the medical evidence establishes the injuries and the
possibility of their being caused by the material objects,
but it does not independently identify the assailants or
resolve the discrepancies in the ocular evidence. The
photographs showing PW.4 undergoing treatment and the
evidence regarding the fractures do not, by themselves,
establish the participation of the accused.

28. The defence state that PW.4 had sustained the
injuries by falling from a motorcycle while riding over a
road hump under the influence of alcohol. Ex.D1, the

- 23 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


Accident Register Extract, records that PW.4 was under
the influence of alcohol. However, the evidence does not
establish the said explanation in its entirety, particularly
the alleged road hump. It is not necessary for the accused
to establish an alternative version in order to obtain the
benefit of reasonable doubt. The prosecution must
establish its own case beyond reasonable doubt, and the
weakness, if any, of the defence cannot cure deficiencies
in the prosecution evidence.

29. On an overall consideration, the prosecution
has established that PWs.4 and 5 sustained injuries, but
the material omissions in the complaint, the inconsistent
versions regarding the number of assailants and the
vehicles used, the discrepancies concerning the place of
occurrence, and the omissions relating to the specific overt
acts attributed to the accused affect the reliability of the
prosecution case. The evidence of PW.3 does not
satisfactorily resolve these discrepancies, PW.8 does not
provide consistent corroboration, and the other witnesses
have not supported the prosecution in material particulars.

- 24 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


The medical and seizure evidence, considered
independently or cumulatively, does not remove the
doubts arising from the oral evidence.

30. In Chandrappa and Others v. State of
Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Apex
Court has reiterated the principles governing an appeal
against acquittal, including that where two reasonable
conclusions are possible on the evidence on record, the
Appellate Court should not disturb the acquittal merely
because another view is possible. In the present case, the
decision of the Sessions Court that the prosecution failed
to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt is a just
and reasonable. The State has not demonstrated that the
appreciation of evidence is perverse or that the judgment
of acquittal warrants interference.

31. Accordingly, the State has failed to make out
any ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal,
and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

- 25 -
CRL.A No. 1239 of 2019


32. In view of the above, we proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
(i) The criminal appeal filed by the State is
dismissed.
(ii) The judgment of acquittal passed by the II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya
acquitting accused Nos.1 to 8 and 10 of the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
148, 341 and 307 r/w. Section 149 of the IPC is
hereby confirmed.
(iii) The Registry shall transmit the records to the
Sessions Court forthwith.

Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE


BNV