Karnataka HC Upholds Acquittal Of 3 In Alleged JCB Attack, Says Complainant Gave Land Dispute Criminal Colour

In brief

The question

1. Whether the appellant established that the acquittal was arbitrary or erroneous, or resulted from a failure to appreciate the evidence.

The court held

The Court answered the first issue in the negative, finding no arbitrary or erroneous appreciation of the evidence warranting appellate interference.

It also directed

It dismissed the appeal and directed the High Court Legal Services Committee, Kalaburagi Bench, to pay the amicus curiae Rs. 10,000 as honorarium.

01Facts

The appellant, the de-facto complainant, alleged that respondent No. 1 claimed ownership of plots in Sy. No. 30 of Hagarga village and, on 6 February 2011, arrived with others and a JCB to demolish houses there.

¶ 2

He alleged that respondent No. 1 abused and threatened the occupants and instigated respondent No. 2, the JCB driver, to drive at them, causing injuries.

¶ 2

The police filed a charge sheet, and the Sessions Court acquitted the accused of the offences under Sections 504, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶ 8, 14

The complainant appealed under Section 372 CrPC, challenging the acquittal.

¶ 1, 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the appellant established that the acquittal was arbitrary or erroneous, or resulted from a failure to appreciate the evidence.

¶ 13

ii.2. Whether the High Court should interfere with the Sessions Court’s acquittal in light of the evidence and the applicable standard of review.

¶ 22–23

03Law Applied

The prosecution was required to prove the charged offences under Sections 504, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

¶ 1–2, 7

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court considers whether the trial court’s view was a possible one on the evidence; the presumption of innocence is reinforced by acquittal, and reversal requires scrutiny within accepted legal parameters. The Court applied this principle from Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala.

¶ 22

It also relied on Sudha Rakesh v. State of Karnataka and Another in observing that a civil dispute should not impermissibly be given a criminal colour to secure a settlement.

¶ 21

Provisions in the judgment · 15 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 235 Section 313 Section 372 Section 378

Indian Penal Code, 1860 11 provisions

Section 34 Section 143 Section 147 Section 148 Section 149 Section 307 Section 324 Section 427 Section 447 Section 504 Section 506

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the complainant admitted to several civil suits and a criminal case arising from the parties’ dispute over the land.

¶ 15

Several prosecution witnesses turned hostile, while the investigating officer recorded statements of witnesses more than a month after the incident.

¶ 15, 20

The Court considered these circumstances, along with the absence of cogent, corroborative and satisfactory evidence, and concluded that the trial court’s acquittal was a permissible view of the record.

¶ 20–23

Applying the deferential standard for appeals against acquittal, it found no basis to interfere.

¶ 22–23