Karnataka HC Upholds Acquittal Of 9 Men In Alleged Roadside Attack On Two Villagers, Finding Witness Contradictions Left Assailants’ Identities Unproven

The prosecution alleged that, following an earlier dispute, the accused intercepted and assaulted PWs 4 and 5 with clubs and other objects.

The injured witnesses were treated at hospital, and PW 3 lodged the complaint.

The Sessions Court acquitted accused Nos. 1–8 and 10 of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

The State appealed under Section 378 CrPC, contending that the Sessions Court had wrongly rejected the injured witnesses’ evidence and supporting material.

The prosecution must prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt; proof that witnesses sustained injuries does not, without reliable evidence identifying the assailants, establish their participation.

Under Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, where two reasonable conclusions are possible on the evidence, an appellate court should not reverse an acquittal merely because another view is available; interference is warranted where the acquittal is not a reasonable view of the evidence.

The appeal was brought under Section 378 CrPC, and the charges arose under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC.

The Court accepted that PWs 4 and 5 had been injured, but found significant inconsistencies concerning the number and identity of the assailants, the vehicles and weapons involved, the location of the incident, and the specific acts attributed to individual accused.

The complaint omitted accused Nos. 7–10; the medical histories gave differing accounts; and the evidence of PW 3 and PW 8 did not reliably resolve those discrepancies.

The hostile witnesses and seizure evidence provided no dependable corroboration, while the medical evidence established injuries but did not identify the assailants.

The defence’s alternative explanation for PW 4’s injuries did not need to be proved, because the prosecution retained the burden of proving its case.

In these circumstances, the Sessions Court’s conclusion that reasonable doubt remained was a plausible view, not a perverse one.

It dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal of accused Nos. 1–8 and 10 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC; the Registry was directed to transmit the records to the Sessions Court.