REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 382 OF 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 9794 of 2017)

BANNAREDDY & ORS. …Appellant(s)

Versus

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

N.V. RAMANA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the

judgment dated 29

th

November, 2017 passed by the High

Court of Karnataka, Bench at Dharwad in Criminal Appeal No.

100108 of 2014.

3. Vide impugned judgment, the appellants were convicted

in the following manner-

i.Under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal

Code (hereinafter “IPC”) were sentenced to undergo a simple

imprisonment of 18 months and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default

of payment of fine they have to undergo further simple

imprisonment for one month;

ii.Under Section 341 read with Section 149 of IPC were sentenced

to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days and

a fine of Rs. 200/- was imposed, in default of payment of fine

they have to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of

one week;

iii.Under Section 504 read with Section 149 of the IPC and have to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine

of Rs. 1000/- was imposed, in default of payment of fine they

have to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

fifteen days;

iv.Under Section 326 read with Section 149 of IPC, each of the

accused were sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of four years and shall pay a fine of Rs. 6000/-, in

default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of two months.

4. Before we delve into the merits and analysis of the case,

it would be trite to refer to the Prosecution’s case. On

29.08.2008, when the village fair was ongoing, the accused

no-2 (Dharmareddy) picked up quarrel with P.W.2

(Hemaraddi), wherein the second accused threatened to finish

P.W.2 (Hemaraddi), but this was pacified with the intervention

of the persons present there. On the same day when P.W.5

(Sanjeevareddy), P.W.2 (Hemaraddi) & P.W.3 (Lingareddy) were

walking to the house, at around 09:30 pm, the accused

persons armed with iron rods, clubs etc. approached them and

started abusing them and restrained them. Thereafter, they

started assaulting the victims, viz. P.W.5 (Sanjeevareddy),

P.W.2 (Hemaraddi) & P.W.3 (Lingareddy). Certain witnesses

intervened and rescued the complainant and other victims

immediately. As the P.W.2 and P.W.3 were injured, they were

taken to Navalgund Government Hospital and later to KIMS

Hospital, Hubli, thereafter they were transferred to the

Sushruta Multi Speciality Nursing Home.

5. The complainant P.W.5, (Sanjeevareddy) gave a complaint

to the police which was registered as Crime No. 194/2008 on

29.08.2008 against the accused under Sections 143, 147, 148,

323, 324, 341, 307, 504, 506 read with 149 of IPC. Thereafter

in the morning of 30.08.2008, the clubs and iron rods were

recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant

Bannareddy in the presence of P.W.6 (Devareddy) and P.W.9

(Fakkirappa). On the same day the bloodstained cloths were

recovered from the possession of the accused appellant no. 1

in the presence of panch witnesses. The bloodstained clothes

were recovered from the possession of the injured Lingareddy

in the presence of P.W.7 & P.W.8. Spot mazhar was conducted

and sample of blood stained earth was collected for chemical

analysis in the presence of mazhar witnesses.

6. The trial Court, after careful perusal of oral and

documentary evidence available on record, by judgment dated

18.01.2014, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed

to prove the alleged offences against the accused beyond

reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused were acquitted for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 504

and 307 read with 149 of IPC.

7. Thereafter, the State preferred the appeal before the High

Court in Criminal Appeal No.100108/2014 against the above

order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, wherein the High

Court, by reversing the order of acquittal passed by the trial

Court, had convicted the accused under Sections 148, 341,

504 and 326 read with 149 of IPC. Therefore, being aggrieved

by the above order of conviction, the accused appellants have

approached this Court.

8. Before us, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellants contended that the prosecution case is full of

contradictions and the material evidence available on record is

highly inconsistent and the order of the High Court, reversing

an order of acquittal, is unsustainable. Learned counsel has

also apprised us about the existence of a compromise entered

into between the parties, but it is not possible under law to

give effect to the same and compound the offence as the

offences charged are not compoundable under Section 320 of

Cr.P.C.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

State supported the impugned judgment of the High Court

convicting the accused-appellants.

10. Heard both the counsels. As the offences alleged are not

compoundable, notwithstanding the fact that the parties have

entered into a compromise, we will deal with the matter on

merits.

11. Before we proceed further to peruse the finding of the

High Court, it is relevant to discuss the power and jurisdiction

of the High Court while interfering in an appeal against

acquittal. It is well settled principle of law that the High Court

should not interfere in the well reasoned order of the trial

court which has been arrived at after proper appreciation of

the evidence. The High Court should give due regard to the

findings and the conclusions reached by the trial court unless

strong and compelling reasons exist in the evidence itself

which can dislodge the findings itself. This principle has

further been elucidated in the case of Sambhaji Hindurao

Deshmukh and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11

SCC 186, para 13, wherein this Court observed that:

“……The High Court will interfere in appeals against

acquittals, only where the trial court makes wrong

assumptions of material facts or fails to appreciate the

evidence properly. If two views are reasonably possible

from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused

and one against the accused, the High Court is not

expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would

have taken the view against the accused had it tried the

case. The very fact that two views are possible makes it

clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the

accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.”

12. It is not in dispute that the presumption of innocence is

further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened against the

acquitted accused by the judgment in his favor. [Vide

Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh vs. Republic of India,

(2011) 2 SCC 490 in para. 94].

13. In light of the above well settled principles, we would

proceed to examine the evidence and analyze whether the

intervention of the High Court in the order of the trial court

was justified.

14. At first it is appropriate to have a glance at the

statements of certain witnesses.

15. Siddappa Doddamani, P.W.1, stated that when he was

near the temple on the date of the said incident, he saw the

accused persons being armed with rods and clubs proceeded

towards the victims’ house. Hence, he followed them out of

curiosity, and saw the accused abusing the victims. During

the said quarrel, the accused no.1 assaulted Sanjeevareddy on

his shoulders & left leg with a club and accused no.7

(Ramappa) assaulted him with a club by giving a blow on his

body. The accused no-2 (Dharmareddy) and accused no.8

(Venkareddy) assaulted P.W.2 (Hemareddy) with an iron rod

on his left shoulder and left hand. It was further stated that

other accused persons also assaulted the victims. Thereafter

he along with P.W.14 (Vardhamangouda), P.W.15 (Sunil),

P.W.16 (Yallappa), P.W.4. (Shivareddy), P.W.13- (Manjureddy)

& P.W.6 (Devareddy) intervened to rescue the victims. It is

pertinent to note that, P.W.1 during his cross examination

contradicted the above statements made in his

examination-in-chief.

16. The victim P.W.2 (Hemareddy) stated that on 29.08.2008,

the accused no.2 (Dharmareddy) abused him and threatened

to kill him in the evening at around 5 pm near Hanuman

Temple, but this was pacified by the intervention of P.W.4

(Shivareddy) and P.W.16 (Yellapa). But again at 9.30 p.m the

said accused persons apprehended the victims near the house

of P.W.14 (Vardhamangouda) and started abusing the victims

in relation to the pending dispute between the parties.

Thereafter, the accused no.9 (Mallareddy) assaulted the

complainant-P.W.5 (Sanjeevareddy) but not P.W.2

(Hemareddy). Accused no.1 (Bannareddy) also assaulted

Sanjeevareddy on the left palm. Accused no.7 (Ramappa)

assaulted Sanjeevareddy with a club on his head and other

parts of the body. Accused no.3 (Hanamareddy) assaulted

Lingareddy on his hands and head with an iron rod. The other

accused persons were dragging the victims towards the other

accused persons who were armed with clubs, who thereafter

assaulted him on his head and body. Accused no.1

(Bannareddy) assaulted Sanjeevareddy on his left hand and

head with iron rod. P.W.11 (Maktumsab), P.W.16 (Yellapa

Halawar), P.W.14 (Vardhamangouda), P.W.1 (Siddapa) along

with others came to their rescue. He further stated that, as the

victims had sustained injuries, his brother Venkatareddy

shifted them to Navalgund General Hospital for treatment,

thereafter they were transferred to the KIMS Hospital, after

being discharged from there, they were admitted in Shushruta

Hospital.

17. The trial court has rightly pointed out the contradictions

in the statements given by P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding the

incident of assault and the participation of the accused

persons. These contradictions are material ones and cannot be

overlooked.

18. Similarly, after the perusal of the statements of P.W.3

and P.W.5 we note that, there exist contradictions with regard

to the incident and the role played by the different accused

persons. The trial court has correctly arrived at a conclusion

on this aspect. Further, it is to be noted that, although the

above witnesses have stated that there were several eye

witnesses to the above incident who intervened to stop the

assault, except P.W.1 (Siddappa) and P.W.13 (Manjureddy),

other witnesses have turned hostile. Apart from the other

victims, P.W.1 (Siddappa) remains the sole witness to the said

incident, but it is to be noted that the statements given by all

of them are not in conformity with each other, rather differ on

material points regarding the commission of the act itself. In

the light of this, it is not appropriate to place reliance on these

statements.

19. Another major contradiction in the prosecution’s version,

as rightly noted by the trial court, is the statement of P.W.14

(Vardhamangouda), who according to the eye witnesses had

intervened in the said fight, as it was happening in the vicinity

of his house. But, in clear contravention to the above version,

P.W.14 states that he was out of station on the said date and

on returning back to the village at night around 11.00 pm he

came to know about the said incident.

20. Although motive becomes irrelevant in the presence of

direct evidences, however, the prosecution has submitted that

the accused and victims were from different political parties,

and political rivalry may be the motive behind the assault.

Although the victims were followers of P.W.14-

(Vardhamangouda), who was the chairman of the panchayat

at the time of incident, but surprisingly he has not supported

the case of the prosecution. Further it is to be noted that,

there existed prior enmity between the accused- appellants

and the complainant victims regarding boundary of their land.

The dispute has been continuing for the past 10-15 years

which could not be resolved even with the intervention of the

other villagers.

21. It is to be noted that certain actions of the victims were

inexplicable drawing our suspicion specifically the behavior of

the victim after the incident. It is an admitted fact that after

the said incident the victims were taken to the Government

Hospital, Navalgund. As P.W.5 (Sanjeevareddy) sustained

simple injuries on his right shoulders thereby he was not

referred for any further treatment. P.W.2 and P.W.3 having

sustained injuries in their head were referred to the KIMS

Hospital, Hubli for further treatment. But the trial court noted

that no documents or certificate regarding the admission or

treatment of the victims to this effect were placed on record.

The trial court rightly pointed out that P.W.19 (Dr. Mithun

Sattur) who treated the victims both in the well reputed KIMS

Hospital and later in Shushruta Hospital, admitted that KIMS

Hospital is well equipped to treat the victims, then it is unclear

why were the victims asked to shift to Shushruta Hospital. No

documents were produced to clarify the same. The medical

evidences produced by the victims prove that, they had not

sustained any fatal injuries. In such circumstances, it is quite

suspicious as to why were the victims shifted from KIMS

Hospital to Shushruta Multi Speciality Hospital, particularly,

P.W.5 (Sanjeevareddy), in spite of not being referred by any

medical officer got himself admitted to KIMS Hospital and later

to Shushruta Multi Speciality Hospital. The trial court thereby

noted that the victims were trying to generate incriminating

evidences against the accused appellants.

22. Coming further to address the guilt of the accused under

Section 149, the prosecution has failed to establish the

involvement of all the accused persons. Although the overt

acts of certain accused such as accused no.1 (Bannareddy),

accused no. 2. (Dharmareddy) have been mentioned in the

statements of the victims and other witnesses. But no mens

rea or actus reus could be attributed towards the rest of the

accused persons to establish their guilt under Section 149 of

the IPC.

23. The trial court has correctly observed that, the

statements made by the mazhar witness regarding recovery of

material cannot be relied on, as they have turned hostile. Even

the recovery of the blood stained mud seems conspicuous

considering the fact that, the given date of incident was

admitted to be drizzly and thousands of devotees had come to

witness the fair. In such circumstances, it is very unlikely

that, the blood samples could have been collected the next

day.

24. The High Court has relied upon the statement of P.W.3,

wherein he stated that, rest of the accused were dragging the

injured to assist the other accused persons with weapons to

assault them. This allegation is very wide and made in vague

manner, the same is not supported by any other evidence. It

will not be appropriate to rely upon the evidence of victims

solely to prove the culpability of the accused persons.

Therefore the trial court has correctly held that, when any

overt act could not be associated with these accused,

provisions of Section 149 IPC will not be attracted.

25. The High Court has failed to take note of the fact that the

panchas to the seizure pachanama have turned hostile.

Although the investigating officer seized weapons which were

identified by the victims and certain eyewitnesses, however, it

is pertinent to note the all the witnesses have turned hostile

except P.W.1 and P.W.13. Although P.W.1 (Siddappa) in his

cross-examination stated that he could recognize the weapons

in M.O.No.1 and No.2 as he has seen them, but contradicted

his own statement by stating that he could not say any special

features of the weapons used in the offence. Further P.W.13

also recognized the weapons as the same used in the assault.

But it must be noted that, P.W.13 seems to be an interested

witness considering his relationship with P.W.3. In such

circumstances, wherein the panch witnesses have turned

hostile, it is not safe to rely upon the recovery of these

weapons to substantiate the guilt of the accused persons.

Further we are suspicious about the collection of blood

samples, especially when it is an admitted fact that the

incident took place on a mud road when it kept drizzling

throughout and additionally thousands of devotees were

present in the village attending the fair. In the light of such

circumstances, the collection of blood samples seems unlikely.

26. In the present case, when the facts as to the incident and

the role of the accused could not be proved beyond reasonable

doubt, whether the motive behind the same is dispute

regarding boundary wall or political rivalry becomes irrelevant.

27. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,

we hold that the prosecution was not able to establish the

guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.

Further, the High Court should not have re-appreciated

evidences in its entirety, especially when there existed no

grave infirmity in the findings of the trial court. There exists no

justification behind setting aside the order of acquittal passed

by the trial court, especially when the prosecution case suffers

from several contradictions and infirmities. No specific

assertion could be proved regarding the role and involvement

of the accused persons. Further, certain actions of the

victim-respondents themselves are dubious, for instance

admitting themselves later in a Multi-speciality hospital

without proper cause. It has further come to our notice that

respondents have already compromised and have executed a

compromise deed to that extent, though the same is not the

basis for our conclusion.

28. Therefore, we set aside the conviction order passed by the

High Court and reaffirm the order of acquittal passed by the

trial court. The appellants are to be released from custody

forthwith.

29. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Pending applications,

if any, shall also stand disposed of.

……….......................J.

(N.V. RAMANA)

...............................J.

(S. ABDUL NAZEER)

New Delhi,

March 12, 2018.

ITEM NO.1504 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-C

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No.382/2018 @ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal

(Crl.) No(s). 9794/2017

BANNAREDDY & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)

([HEARD BY : HON. N.V. RAMANA AND HON. S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.])

Date : 12-03-2018 This matter was called on for pronouncement of

judgment today.

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. C.M. Angadi, Adv.

Mr. B.V. Somapur, Adv.

Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR

For Respondent(s)

Mr. N.D.B. Raju, Adv.

Krishma M.N., Adv.

Mr. Ajay K. Dutta, Adv.

Mr.Joseph Aristotle S., Adv.

Ms. Priya Aristotle, Adv.

Mr. Ashish Yadav, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana pronounced the judgment of the

Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.

Leave granted.

We set aside the conviction order passed by the High Court and

reaffirm the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The

appellants are to be released from custody forthwith.

The appeal is allowed accordingly in terms of the signed

reportable judgment.

(SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR) (RENUKA SADANA)

AR CUM PS ASST.REGISTRAR

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

17 1