Mutt Property Dispute: Karnataka HC Upholds Acquittal Of 6 Men In Alleged Assault Case Amid Pending Cases Between Parties

In brief

The question

Whether the complainant established that the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was arbitrary, erroneous, or based on inadequate appreciation of the evidence.

The court held

The High Court answered the issue in the negative and dismissed the appeal.

It also directed

It confirmed the Sessions Court’s acquittal dated 22 March 2025 in S.C. No. 30 of 2016 and directed the High Court Legal Services Committee, Kalaburagi Bench, to pay the amicus curiae an honorarium of Rs. 10,000.

01Facts

The complainant appealed against the Sessions Court’s acquittal of six accused of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 307 and 504 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

¶ 1, 13–14

The prosecution alleged that, following a dispute over construction on land said to belong to a mutt, the accused attacked the complainant and other villagers with an axe and clubs.

¶ 3–6

At trial, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses; the accused denied the incriminating evidence and led no evidence.

¶ 9–11

The Sessions Court acquitted the accused, finding the charges unproved beyond reasonable doubt.

¶ 13

The complainant challenged that acquittal, arguing that the trial court had disregarded material evidence and that the injuries and treatment of the injured witnesses supported the prosecution.

¶ 15–16

02Issues

i.Whether the complainant established that the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was arbitrary, erroneous, or based on inadequate appreciation of the evidence.

¶ 20

ii.Whether the appellate court should interfere with the acquittal where the trial court’s assessment of the evidence was a possible view.

¶ 43–45

03Law Applied

Under Section 413 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 372 of the CrPC), a complainant may appeal an acquittal as provided by law.

¶ 1

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court considers whether the trial court’s view was a possible one on the evidence; an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, and interference is warranted only after thorough scrutiny on accepted legal principles.

¶ 45

The Court also referred to Shailesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 726, for the principle that criminal proceedings should not be used as a substitute for civil remedies.

¶ 46

Provisions in the judgment · 14 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 413

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 372 Section 207 Section 313 Section 378

Indian Penal Code, 1860 9 provisions

Section 143 Section 147 Section 148 Section 341 Section 324 Section 326 Section 307 Section 504 Section 149

04Reasoning

The High Court found that the dispute arose against a background of pending civil and criminal cases between the parties, and that the property stood in the accused persons’ names in the panchayat records.

¶ 22, 39–41

It noted evidence that the accused had constructed a house on the property years earlier, as well as the failure of panch witnesses to support the prosecution’s case.

¶ 27, 30–32, 42

The injured witnesses’ evidence was assessed in light of the parties’ existing disputes and alleged hostility; the Court concluded that the trial court could reasonably find that this evidence did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

¶ 42–44

Since the trial court’s conclusion was a possible view of the evidence, the reinforced presumption of innocence did not justify appellate interference.

¶ 43–45