in the high court of karnataka dated this the 20 th...

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200020/2014

C/W

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200026/2014

CRL.A.NO.200020/2014

BETWEEN:

THE STATE THROUGHDSP, BASAVANA BAGEWADI POLICE STATION,REPRESENTED BY ADDL. STATE PUBLICPROSECUTOR, GULBARGA

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI: SHESHADRI JAYASHANKAR M., HCGP)

AND:

1. TAMMANNARAO KRISHNAJIMANAGULI, AGE: 65 YEARS,R/O BASAVANA BAGEWADINOW RESIDING AT ROAD NO.15TEACHER’S COLONY,VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOT

2

2. MAHANTESH MALLAPPA HADAGALIAGE: 32 YEARSR/O MASABINAL NOW RESIDINGAT BASAVANA BAGEWADI

3. VENKATESH BASAVARAJ CHIKONDAGE: 34 YEARSR/O CHIKKODRAVARA ONI,NEAR KODEKALGUDI,R/O BASAVANA BAGEWADI,TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,DIST: VIJAYAPUR

4. SURESH GURAGONDAPPACHIKKOND, AGE: 38 YEARSNO.1693, R/O BASAVANA BAGEWADI,TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,DIST. VIJAYAPUR

5. SURESH NINGAPPA CHIKKONDAGE: 27 YEARS, NO.467R/O BASAVANA BAGEWADITQ:. BASAVANA BAGEWADIDIST. VIJAYAPUR

6. IRAGANTEPPA S/O ADIVEPPARAMPUR, AGE: 65 YEARS, NO.467R/O BASAVANA BAGEWADITQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADIDIST. VIJAYAPUR

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI: ANIL KUMAR NAVADAGI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R6)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

U/S 378(1) & (b) OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE

STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE

3

PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT DT: 18.09.2013 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL

JUDGE/2ND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIJAPUR, IN

SPECIAL CASE NO: 28/2011 THEREBY ACQUITTING THE

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 143,

147, 504, 506, 420 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND

SECTION 3(1)(x) OF SC/ST (P.A.) ACT, 1989 AND SET

ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 18.09.2013

PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE/2ND ADDL. SESSIONS

JUDGE, AT BIJAPUR, IN SPECIAL CASE NO: 28/2011 FOR

OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 504, 506, 420 R/W SECTION

149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(x) OF SC/ST (P.A. ACT, 1989

AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE

OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 504, 506, 420 R/W SECTION

149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(x) OF SC/ ST (P.A.) ACT

1989, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

CRL.A.NO.200026/2014

BETWEEN:

HARILAL S/O LAXMAN NAYAKAGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURER/O JALIHAL TANDA, TQ: BASAVANABAGEWAD, DIST: VIJAYAPUR

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI: SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. TAMMANNARAO KRISHNAJIMANAGULI, AGE: 67 YEARS,R/O BASAVANA BAGEWADI,NOW RESIDING AT ROAD NO.15,TEACHER’S COLONY,

4

VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOT

2. MAHANTESH MALLAPPAHADAGALI, AGE: 34 YEARSR/O MASABINAL, NOW RESIDINGAT BASAVANA BAGEWADI,TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,DIST: VIJAYAPUR

3. VENKATESH BASAVARAJCHIKKOND, AGE: 36 YEARSR/O CHIKKODRAVARA ONI,BASAVANA BAGEWADI,TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,DIST: VIJAYAPUR

4. SURESH GURAGONDAPPACHIKKOND, AGE: 40 YEARS,R/O BASAVANA BAGEWADITQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADIDIST. VIJAYAPUR

5. SURESH NINGAPPA CHIKKONDAGE: 29 YEARS,R/O BASAVANA BAGEWADITQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADIDIST: VIJAYAPUR

6. IRAGANTEPPA S/O ADIVEPPARAMPUR, AGE: 67 YEARS,R/O BASAVANA BAGEWADITQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADIDIST. VIJAYAPUR

7. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE DY. SP, BASAVANA BAGEWADI, (BASAVANA BAGEWADI,

5

POLICE STATION) … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI: ANIL KUMAR NAVADAGI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R6;SRI: SHESHADRI JAYASHANKAR M., HCGP FOR R7)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION372 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTPRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT TO ADMIT THISAPPEAL, CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE COURTBELOW AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OFACQUITTAL DATE 18.09.2013 PASSED BY THE SPECIALJUDGE/II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIJAPUR INSPECIAL CASE NO.28/2011 AND CONVICT THERESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S143, 147, 504, 506 & 420 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC ANDSECTIONS 3(1) (X) OF ATROCITY ACT, IN THE INTERST OFJUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THISDAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Heard the learned Government Pleader

Sri.Sheshadri Jayashankar, Sri.Anilkumar Navadagi,

the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and

Sri.Shivanand Pattanshetty, the learned counsel

appearing for the victim.

2. Both the appeals are at the stage of admission.

6

3. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 in both the appeals are

accused in Special Case No.28/2011, which was

pending on the file of Special Judge/II Additional

Sessions Judge, Bijapur.

4. Charge sheet has been filed against respondent

Nos.1 to 6/accused by the Dy.S.P., Basavana Bagewadi,

Bijapur district, for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 504, 506, 420 read with Section 149

of IPC and Section 3(i) (x) of Schedule Castes and

Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

5. The facts leading to filing of the charge sheet

against the accused, according to the prosecution

papers, are as follows:

a. Accused No.1 – Tammannarao had agreed to sell

his land bearing Sy.No.531 of Basavana Bagewadi

village to the complainant Sri.Harilal, in the year 1994,

7

for total consideration of Rs.2,52,000/- and a sum of

Rs.25,000/- had been received as advance. The case of

the complainant – Harilal is that he had been put in

possession of land bearing Sy.Nos.531/2 and 531/1B of

Basavana Bagewadi village and he is in possession of

the same and has put up a farm house in the land in

question.

b. It is alleged that accused No.1 had postponed to

execute regular sale deed on one pretext or the other

and later on he had sold the said land in favour of

accused No.2 and his wife Shridevi for higher amount

and thereby cheated him. It is alleged that when the

complainant was in his land i.e., Sy.No.531, on

25.06.2011, accused Nos.1 to 6 came there and formed

themselves into unlawful assembly, holding clubs and

stones, with common object of committing offence. It is

alleged that all the accused used criminal force against

8

the complainant, abused him in filthy language with

reference to his caste-Lamani and threatened him with

dire consequences. CW.4 came there to rescue the

complainant and accused also abused him in filthy

language with reference to his caste and dragged him

here and there. The complainant and CW.4 are the

members of Lambani community, which comes within

the purview of Schedule Caste.

6. The first information was lodged at about 2.00

p.m., on the same day before the respondent police

station. On the basis of which, a case came to be

registered in Crime No.145/2011 for the offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 420 read

with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(i) (x) of SC & ST

(P.A.) Act, 1989.

7. Investigation was taken over by the jurisdictional

Dy.S.P. and charge sheet was filed. The following

9

charges were leveled against the accused by the learned

Judge, on 19.12.2012 are as follows:

CHARGES

“I, Sri.S.C.Maradi, B.A.LL.B. (Spl.), II Addl.

Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Bijapur, do

hereby charge you:

Accused:

1. Tammannarao Krishnaji Managuli

2. Mahantesh Mallappa Hadagali

3. Venkatesh Basavaraj Chikkond

4. Suresh Guragondappa Chikkond

5. Suresh Ningappa Chikkond

6. Irganteppa Rampur

as follows:

That you Tammannrao Krishnaji Managuli

being the owner of land bearing Sy.No.531/2

and 531/1B of Basavana Bagewadi village

agreed to sell said lands to the complainant

Harilal Laxman Naik/CW.1 and by executing

agreement of sale received advance of

Rs.25,000/- by handing over possession of the

10

lands to the complainant who is cultivating the

same by residing in the land itself and thereafter

you have again sold the said lands to one Sridevi

wife of your accused No.2 Mahantesh Hadagali

and cheated him.

On 25.06.2011 in the morning at about 11

a.m. when the complainant Harilal Naik CW.1

was in the above said land you accused No.1 to

6 named above went their in Bolero Jeep No.GA-

07/C-6768 by forming an unlawful assembly

and the common object of which was to commit

an offence of rioting and in furtherance of your

common object picked up quarrel with

complainant Harilal Laxman Naik/CW.1 and

thereby committed an offence punishable under

Sections 143 and 147 read with Section 149 of

IPC within the cognizance of this Court.

Secondly that you accused No.1 to 6

named above on the above said date, time and

place being the member of an unlawful assembly

and the common object of which was to commit

an offence of rioting and in furtherance by going

to the said land you have picked up quarrel with

complainant Harilal Laxman Naik/CW.1 and

11

abused him in filthy language, insulted in the

public, knowing fully well that he belongs to

scheduled caste insulted by taking his caste in

the public place and thereby committed offence

punishable under Sections 504 read with

Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(i) (x) of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 within the

cognizance of this Court.

Thirdly, that you accused No.1 to 6 on the

above said date, time and place being members

of unlawful assembly and the common object of

which was to commit offence of rioting and in

furtherance put life threat to complainant

Harilal Laxman Naik/CW.1 and caused alarm to

his life and thereby committed an offence

punishable under Section 506 read with Section

149 of IPC and within cognizance of this Court.

Lastly, that you accused No.1

Tammannarao Krishnaji Managuli being the

owner of land Sy.No.531 Basavana Bagewadi

village having entered into sale agreement with

the complainant Harilal Laxman Naik/CW.1 to

sell the land and having received advance of

12

Rs.25,000/-, then sold the said lands to Sridevi

wife of you accused No.2 Mahantesh Hadagali

and thereby committed an offence of cheating

punishable under Section 420 of IPC and within

cognizance of this Court.

And I hereby direct that you be tried by

this Court on the said charges.

Dated: This 19th Day of December 2012.

(S.C.Maradi) Special Judge,

II Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijapur”

The accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

8. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, 11

witnesses have been examined out of 18 witnesses cited

in the charge sheet. Exs.P1 to P8 have been got

marked. Ex.D1 is the zerox copy of the notice, got

issued by the complainant through his advocate

13

Sri.S.S.Hiremath of Bagalkot. Ultimately, the learned

judge has framed the following points for consideration:

POINTS

“1. Whether prosecution prove beyond

all reasonable doubts, on 25.06.2011 at about

11:00 a.m. in the land bearing Sy. No.531

situated adjoining Basavana Bagewadi-Bijapur

road within the limits of Basavana Bagewadi,

accused Nos.1 to 6 formed into an unlawful

assembly, the common object of which was to

commit offence against the complainant and his

brother Tarasingh/CW-4 and thereby

committed an offence punishable U/s.143 of

Indian Penal Code?

2. Whether prosecution further prove

beyond all reasonable doubts that, on the same

date, time and place, accused being the

members of unlawful assembly and in

furtherance of common object of such

assembly, committed rioting by using criminal

force against the complainant and his brother

Tarasingh/CW-4 and thereby committed an

offence punishable U/s. r/w s.149 of Indian

Penal Code?’

14




members unlawful assembly and in furtherance

of the common object of such assembly, abused

the complainant and his brother

Tarasingh/CW-4 in filthy words and

intentionally insulted them with intent to

provoke knowing it to be likely that such

provocation would cause them to break public

peace and thereby committed an offence

punishable U/s.504 r/w 149 of Indian Penal

Code?




members of unlawful assembly and in

furtherance of the common object of such

assembly, threatened the complainant and his

brother Tarasing/CW-4 with their lives with

intent to cause alarm to them and thereby

committed an offence of criminal intimidation

punishable U/s.506 r/w s.149 of Indian Penal

Code?

15


beyond all reasonable doubts that, accused

No.1 being the owner of the land Sy. No.531 of

Basavana Bagewadi having entered into an

agreement of sale of said land in favour of the

complainant and handed over the possession of

the said land to the complainant and received

entire consideration amount in instalments and

thereby sold the said land to one shridevi w/o

accused No.2 and thereby committed an offence

of cheating punishable U/s.420 of Indian Penal

Code?


beyond all reasonable doubts that, accused

Nos.1 to 6 abused the complainant and his

brother Tarasing/CW-4 in filthy language with

intent to humiliate them being members of

Scheduled Tribe in a place within the public

view and thereby committed an offence

punishable U/s.3 (I) (x) of scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

199 ?

7. What order?”

16

The learned Judge has answered all the points in

the negative and ultimately acquitted all the accused.

9. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed on

18.09.2013, the State has filed an appeal before this

Court in Crl.A.No.200020/2014, aggrieved by the same

judgment of acquittal of all the accused. The

complainant Harilal has filed separate appeal before this

Court in Crl.A.No.200026/2014. Hence, both the

appeals are taken up together for consideration and

they have disposed off by the common judgment.

10. After going through the pleadings and hearing the

learned counsel for the parties, the following points

arise for consideration of this Court:

1. Whether the trial Court is justified in

coming to the conclusion that the

prosecution has failed to bring home the

17

guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable

doubts?

2. Whether the trial Court is justified in

acquitting all the accused?

3. Whether any interference is called for and

if so, to what extent?

11. In order to convict the accused, the prosecution is

expected to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond

all reasonable doubts. What is proof of reasonable

doubt is succinctly explained by the Apex Court in the

case of STATE OF U.P. Vs. KRISHNA GOPAL AND

ANOTHER reported in AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT

2154 and paragraph of 13 of said judgment is relevant

and extracted as follows:

“13. There might also be some

justification for the grievance of the

appellant that the High Court had preferred

some observations in the medical evidence

18

which Sri.Prithviraj characterised as merely

conjectural answers to the other categoric

answers by the very medical witnesses

themselves. Sri.Prithviraj also submitted

that it would be erroneous to accord undue

primacy to the hypothetical answers of

medical witnesses to exclude the eye-

witnesses’ account which had to be tested

independently and not treated as the

“variable” keeping the medical evidence as

the “constant”.

It is trite that where the eye-witnesses’

account is found credible and trustworthy,

medical opinion pointing to alternative

possibilities is not accepted as conclusive.

Witnesses, as Bantham said, are the eyes

and ears of justice. Hence the importance

and primacy of the quality of the trial

process. Eyewitnesses’ account would

require a careful independent assessment

and evaluation for their credibility which

should not be adversely prejudged making

any other evidence, including medical

19

evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test

of such credibility. The evidence must be

tested for its inherent consistency and the

inherent probability of the story;

consistency with the account of other

witnesses held to be credit-worthy;

consistency with the undisputed facts the

‘credit’ of the witnesses; their performance

in the witness-box; their power of

observation etc. Then the probative value of

such evidence becomes eligible to be put

into the scales for a cumulative evaluation

A person has, no doubt, a profound

right not to be convicted of an offence which

is not established by the evidential standard

of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though

this standard is a higher standard, there is,

however, no absolute standard. What

degree of probability amounts to ‘proof’ is an

exercise particular to each case. Referring

to of probability amounts to ‘proof’ is an

exercise the inter-dependence of evidence

and the confirmation of one piece of

20

evidence by another a learned author says:

(See “The Mathematics of Proof II” : Glanville

Williams : Criminal Law Review, 1979, by

Sweet and Maxwell, p.340 (342).

“The simple multiplication rule does

not apply if the separate pieces of evidence

are dependent. Two events are dependent

when they tend to occur together, and the

evidence of such events may also be said to

be dependent. In a criminal case, different

pieces of evidence directed to establishing

that the defendant did the prohibited act

with the specified state of mind are

generally dependent. A juror may feel doubt

whether to credit an alleged confession, and

doubt whether to infer guilt from the fact

that the generally guilty rather than

innocent people who make confessions, and

guilty rather than innocent people who run

away, the two doubts piece of evidence may

confirm the other.”

21

Doubts would be called reasonable if

they are free from a zest for abstract

speculation. Law cannot afford any

favourite other than truth. To constitute

reasonable doubt, it must be free from an

over emotional response. Doubts must be

actual and substantial doubts as to the

guilt of the accused person arising from the

evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed

to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable

doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a

merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt

based upon reason and common-sense. It

must grow out of the evidence in the case.

The concepts of probability, and the

degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed

in terms of units to be mathematically

enumerated as to how many of such units

constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.

There is an unmistakable subjective

element in the evaluation of the degrees of

probability and the quantum of proof.

Forensic probability must, in the last

22

analysis, rest on a robust common sense

and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of

the judge. While the protection given by the

criminal process to the accused persons is

not to be eroded, at the same time,

uninformed legitimisation of trivialities

would make a mockery of administration of

criminal justice.”

12. The complainant-Hiralal’s case is that the 1st

defendant is the owner of lands bearing Survey

Nos.531/B and 531/2 and he had agreed to sell the

same in his favour in the year 1994 for a sum of

Rs.2,52,000/- and had received Rs.25,000/-. It is his

case that the said lands have been handed over to him

and he is in possession. The 1st defendant is stated to

have cheated him by not executing the regular sale

deed. It is further alleged that the 1st accused along

with other accused persons, trespassed into the

schedule land and threatened him with dire

23

consequences and abused him with reference to his

caste and even threatened to demolish the entire house

put up by him. It is further alleged that 15-20 persons

had also accompanied those accused persons and they

caught hold of him and dragged him here and there and

pulled his collar. If really the complainant was in

possession of the property by virtue of the agreement of

sale, his name would have found place in the revenue

records, at least in column no.12(2), a column

earmarked for entering the name of the person in

possession, though not in columns 9 and 10.

13. Exs.P6 and P7 are RTC entries in respect of Survey

Nos.531/1B and 531/2 measuring 8 acres and 4 acres

respectively. The name of khatedar is shown as

Mahantesh, son of Mallappa Hadagali in Ex.P6 and

name of Sridevi, wife of Mahantesh is found as khatedar

in respect of 4 acres pertaining to Survey No.531/2 as

24

depicted in Ex.P7. Under Section 133 of the Land

Revenue Act, an entry found in the revenue records is

deemed to be true and correct till the same is

substituted by means of a valid order. No document is

forthcoming as to the existence of the house in the land

in question as alleged by the complainant in his first

information lodged before the police marked as Ex.P1.

14. The first informant himself has been examined as

PW1. He is an agriculturist residing at Jalihala Thanda.

He has reiterated the contents of Ex.P1. He has been

cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the

accused. Some useful admissions have been elicited

from his mouth in regard to the pending judicial

proceedings between the complainant on one hand and

accused nos.1 and 2 on the other hand. He has

deposed about 2 suits being filed by him against the 2nd

accused in the civil court at Basavanabagewadi. He has

25

admitted that an application had been filed on his

behalf seeking temporary injunction against the 2nd

accused relating to these lands in the said suits and no

injunction has been granted in his favour. Apart from

this, he has admitted that 2nd accused who has

purchased the lands from the 1st accused has obtained

an order of injunction against him, i.e. complainant

from interfering with his peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the lands in question.

15. Admittedly a serious civil dispute is pending

between accused nos.1 and 2 on the one hand and the

complainant on the other hand and in this regard the

court is expected to cautiously evaluate the evidence of

PW1 and the witnesses who have spoken about the

alleged offence of trespass as well as abuse made with

reference to the caste of PW1 and his brother. The best

persons who could have spoken about the alleged

26

incident are adjoining land owners. PW1 has admitted

that to the east of the schedule land is the land of

Kanteppa Kallur, to the west is the land of Ningappa

Chikkond; to the north is road leading from

Basavanabagewadi to Bagalkot and to the south is the

land of Shankreppa Haariwal After the road is the land

of Mudukappa Revanasiddappa. He has admitted that

CWs-5 to 7 who allegedly came to rescue him are not

the neighbouring land owners. The 1st accused is

residing at Bagalkot and he has feigned ignorance about

the place of residence of 2nd accused when a specific

question was put to him that the 2nd accused is living in

Goa. CW6-Neelu Naik is the head of their community

and is a member of Town Panchayat and is related to

him.

16. PW2-Tarasingh, PW3-Neelappa Naik and PW4-

Dharmanna were stated to be present when the alleged

27

incident took place. They did not have any land

adjacent to the lands in question. In his cross-

examination, PW2 has admitted that the 1st accused is

not residing in Bagewadi village. Similarly PW3 has

deposed that he was in judicial custody relating to

Crime No.108/13 of Bagewadi police for 15 days and

has feigned ignorance about the offence for which he

was detained by the police. In his cross-examination,

he has deposed that the complainant and accused were

engaged in verbal exchange of words and he abused

them. PW3 is closely related to PW1 and does not have

any land in the vicinity of the land in question.

17. PW4 is close to PW1 and his brother. He has

admitted that normally his caste people would be called

‘Lambani’ and if they are called so, they would not feel

offended. From his evidence, it is clear that the use of

the word ‘Lambani’ is not an offensive word. PW5-

28

Vishwanath Kallur has been examined to prove the

factum of possession by PW1. No document is

forthcoming in regard to the agreement of sale. If really

PW1 was in possession of the land, police would have

definitely invoked Section 447, I.P.C. for trespassing

into the land. PW6 has deposed about PW1 being in

possession of the land on the strength of the agreement

of sale. As already discussed, no document is

forthcoming evidencing the alleged possession.

18. PW7 is stated to have mediated between PW1 and

1st accused relating to the agreement of sale and receipt

of Rs.25,000/- by the 1st accused. He does not know

anything about the alleged interference and offence.

Without producing the document evidencing the

agreement of sale, his evidence is of no consequence.

PW8 is Sangappa Sharanappa, attestor to Ex.P4-spot

mahazar. PW9-Dharmanna is an eyewitness to the

29

incident in question. He has deposed in his

examination-in-chief about the accused trespassing in

his land and abusing PW1 and his brother with

reference to caste and holding out threat with dire

consequences. He is basically a lawyer by profession.

He practices in Bagewadi as well as Bagalkot. He

resides in Lavaneshwar Tanda village. He has admitted

about the notice being got issued to the 1st accused at

the instance of PW1 through his senior relating to

specific performance. He has admitted Ex.D1 as the

copy of notice got issued.

19. PW10-Godeppa Rayappa, ASI, registered the case

and PW11-Vittal Parashuram Jagali, DSP, conducted

investigation. Prosecution is expected to prove that

PW1 was in possession of the property in question and

he had put up a farm house there. Unless that basic

aspect is proved, it is difficult to accept the case of the

30

prosecution. These aspects have been taken into

consideration by the trial court in right perspective.

Admittedly 1st accused was the absolute owner of the

property in question and has conveyed the same to 2nd

accused. Apart from this, 2nd accused had already

obtained an order of temporary injunction against PW1

and therefore he was entitled to rebut any sort of

interference by any person who has no authority.

Therefore, self-defence as per Section 104 of the

Evidence Act should also be taken into consideration

while evaluating the evidence in a case like this.

20. PWs-5, 6 and 7 have not deposed about the alleged

incident of quarrel that took place on 25.6.2011. They

have only deposed about execution of the agreement of

sale in favour of the complainant and possession being

handed over to him. There are inherent inconsistencies

in the oral evidence of PWs-1, 2, 3, 4 and 9. PW2 has

31

not at all deposed that accused nos.1 and 2 held the

shirt of the complainant and pulled him or that he went

to the rescue of his brother, or that 1st accused

threatened the complainant with dire consequences to

his life if he did not vacate the land. There is no

material corroboration in the evidence of witnesses who

are closely related to each other. Necessary discussion

in this regard is found at paragraph 15 of the judgment.

In paragraph 18, the learned judge has doubted the

credibility of the evidence of PW1 who has admitted

about injunction being granted against him from

interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment

of the land purchased by accused no.2 from the 1st

accused. Being armed with an order of temporary

injunction, accused no.2 is entitled to protect his

protection.

32

21. Admittedly there is a civil dispute pending between

the 1st accused and the complainant. PW1 and his

brother are inimically disposed towards the accused and

therefore, the trial court has scrutinized the entire

evidence slowly but cautiously. On such close scrutiny,

the trial court has found that their evidence is full of

glaring inconsistencies vis-à-vis the contents of Ex.P1-

first information and has held that PWs-3, 4 and 9

belong to the same caste and they are partisan in

nature. This court does not find reason to interfere with

such finding even on a careful evaluation of evidence.

PW1 has deposed that Shankreppa and Tammannarao

abused him in filthy language, but the I.O. has not sent

both of them for trial. This also speaks in volumes

about the credibility attached to Ex.P1 which is a

detailed first information.

33

22. Learned counsel, Mr.Anilkumar Navadgi has

argued that the complainant has ingeniously invented a

way to seek vengeance against accused nos.1 and 2,

being unsuccessful in his suits. He has argued that the

provisions of Section 420, I.P.C. is not applicable to the

facts of this case as the matter is civil in nature. There

appears to be a strong force in this submission. The

alleged incident is stated to have taken place because of

the alleged cheating and PW1 has thoroughly failed to

prove the said aspect. Suffice to state that the learned

judge has tested the entire evidence on the touchstone

of intrinsic probabilities and has carefully analyzed the

entire evidence to come to the conclusion that the

prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt. Taking into consideration

the overall facts and circumstances of the case and

evidence, the trial court is justified in holding that the

prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused

34

beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, point no.1 is

answered in the affirmative.

23. Point nos.2 and 3: In view of my finding on point

no.1, point no.2 is answered in the negative. In view of

findings on point nos.1 and 2, no interference is called

for and the learned judge of the trial court is justified in

acquitting the accused. There are no merits in the

appeal filed by the State and the complainant.

24. Accordingly both the appeals are liable to be

dismissed. Accordingly the appeals are dismissed as

unfit for admission.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Srt/vgh*

in the high court of karnataka dated this the 20 th...

Documents