- 1 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7

TH

DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.219 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

1. VINESH SHETTY

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

S/O KARUNAKARA SHETTY

R/AT KANIKUMAR, SHIRVA POST

UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-574 116.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. ASHOK KUMAR SHETTY K., &

SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

SUB-DIVISION

MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT COMPLEX

BENGALURU-560 001

…RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATIL, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DAT ED

13.12.2019, PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AN D

- 2 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN S.C.NO.101/2013,

CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.6 FOR THE

OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 143, 147,

148, 341, 302 R/W 149 OF IPC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS

THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

This appeal is filed praying this Court to set aside the

judgment of conviction and sentence passed in

S.C.No.101/2013 on the file of VI Additional Distri ct and

Sessions Judge and MACT, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalur u dated

13.12.2019 for the offences punishable under Sectio ns 109,

120B, 143, 147, 148, 341, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC

and acquit the appellant.

2. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is that

this appellant is one of the accused along with others having

committed murder of Pruthvipal Rai, Venugopal Nayak by

assaulting them with long (machhu), swords and dama ged the

car and this incident has occurred to take revenge in

- 3 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

connection with murder of their son. It is the case of the

prosecution that accused No.1 by name Chandraprabha Rai had

sold a site bearing No.14 measuring 30 x 40 feet si tuated in

Sy.No.236/1 of Balepuni Village standing in the nam e of one

Chandraprabha Rai by executing a General Power of A ttorney in

the name of owner, with a dishonest intention by impersonating

herself as Chandraprabha Rai, sold the same for a s um of

Rs.30,000/- to C.W.12 i.e., Alphonsa D'Souza. Out of the said

amount of Rs.30,000/-, she paid Rs.20,000/- to supa ri Killer

i.e., the present accused/appellant-Vinesh Shetty as supari and

hatched up a plan by making conspiracy to kill Venu gopal

Nayak and Santhosh Shetty. Accordingly, on 05.03.20 03 at

about 07.00 p.m. at Mudipu-Mulur Road in a lonely p lace, the

accused persons came in a white Maruthi 800 car bea ring

registration No.KA-19-N-1771 and formed an unlawful

assembly, parked the car across the said road with an intention

to obstruct the way of Venugopal Nayak and Santhosh Shetty.

It is the prosecution case that they were waiting f or their

arrival by carrying weapons. During that time, when the said

Venugopal Nayak and Santhosh Shetty came from their quarry

side towards Mudipu in their Armada Jeep bearing re gistration

- 4 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

No.KA-19-U-3605, accused No.1-Vinitha B. Rai as per their pre-

plan, gave a signal by lighting a cracker, by that time, accused

No.2-Balakrishna Rai had kept big stones on the roa d to

wrongfully restrain them and the other five accused persons,

who were waiting near their car, by hearing the sou nd of

cracker, got alert, when they came near the place i n a jeep,

attacked them, accused-Vinesh Shetty i.e., this appellant fired

with revolver on both Venugopal Nayak and Santhosh Shetty.

Other accused persons including accused Lokesh Bang era

attacked the deceased persons with swords and long (machhu)

and caused damage to the jeep. After attacking them , they

pushed victim's jeep back side and escaped from the scene

along with weapons. In view of the said incident, complaint was

lodged by Thimmappa Nayak, who is the brother of Ve nugopal

Nayak. Based on the complaint, case was registered invoking

the above offences.

3. The Police have investigated the matter and file d

the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2, later accused

Nos.3 to 5 were arrested and additional charge sheet was filed

showing accused Nos.6 and 7 as absconding. The Magi strate

- 5 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

having received the charge sheet took cognizance an d

committed the case for trial. The Trial Judge had t aken up

S.C.No.12/2004 and conducted the trial. During the trial,

accused No.2 died, hence case against him was abate d and

proceeded to consider the matter against accused No s.1 and 3

to 5 and acquitted accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 vide ju dgment

dated 22.04.2006. The accused Nos.6 and 7 were not secured

during trial and when the trial was conducted against accused

Nos.1 and 3 to 5, they were secured subsequently an d charge

sheet was filed separately against accused Nos.6 and 7, since

they were absconding at the time of investigation. Having filed

the charge sheet, cognizance was taken and matter w as

committed for trial. After receipt of records, S.C.No.101/2013

was registered against accused No.6 and S.C.No.37/2 011 was

registered against accused No.7 and both of them ar e tried

together. The accused have not pleaded guilty and claimed for

trial.

4. The prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.Ws .1

to 38 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P92 and

- 6 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

M.Os.1 to 22 are also marked. The defence also got marked

documents Exs.D1 to D4.

5. The accused persons were subjected to 313

statement, but not led any defence evidence. The Tr ial Court

considering the material available on record comes to the

conclusion that death of Venugopal Nayak and Santho sh Shetty

is homicidal one and also comes to the conclusion t hat

prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable d oubt and

the accused persons with a common object being a me mber of

an unlawful assembly, caused rioting with deadly we apons by

wrongfully restraining both of them when they were proceeding

in a Armada Jeep. Being aggrieved by the judgment o f

conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.101/2013, present

appeal is filed by appellant/accused No.6.

6. The main contention of learned counsel appearing

for the appellant is that split up trial is conducted exclusively

against accused Nos.6 and 7 and the incident has ta ken place

on 05.03.2003. The counsel also vehemently contend that Trial

Judge acquitted accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 in S.C.No. 12/2004

on merits and two split-up cases are registered aga inst this

- 7 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

accused as well as accused No.7. It is the case of the

prosecution that accused No.6 i.e., appellant herein was not

available during the initial investigation. But, he was arrested in

2007 by Mumbai Police in LAC No.20/2007 under the A rms Act,

an entirely unrelated case. He was subsequently bro ught to

Karnataka only around 2013, resulting in a split-up trial nearly

10 years after the alleged incident. The counsel wo uld

vehemently contend that the Trial Court relied upon oral

testimony of P.W.4 and P.W.16, both of them have projected as

chance eye witnesses and recovery of a firearm in M umbai in

2007 has no ballistic nexus with the present case. The counsel

also vehemently contend that there is no direct, ph ysical,

scientific, forensic, medical, ballistic, documentary or recovery

based evidence connecting this accused to the alleg ed crime.

The counsel also vehemently contend that when the e vidence

of these witnesses i.e., P.W.4 and P.W.16 were not accepted by

the Trial Court in S.C. No.12/2004 and in the present case, the

Trial Court committed an error in relying upon iden tical

evidence without any new, independent or corroborat ive

material which is legally impermissible. The case o f the

prosecution is that this accused fired at Venugopal Nayak and

- 8 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

Santhosh Shetty from close range near Sindadagudde as a part

of group attack.

7. The counsel would vehemently contend that

prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.16,

P.W.32, P.W.33, P.W.34 and P.W.35. But, the witness es

P.Ws.32, 33, 34 and 35 are Mumbai Police Officers r elating to

Arms Act case. P.W.36 is the Investigating Officer and none of

these witnesses provide independent, scientific or

contemporaneous proof of involvement of this appell ant. The

conviction is based solely on unreliable chance witnesses i.e.,

P.W.4 and P.W.16, who are claimed to have been pres ent on

the road coincidentally at the time of incident. The counsel

would contend that material omissions and contradictions in the

statement of P.W.16 as per Exs.D1 to D3 were ignore d by the

Trial Court and regarding illegality of reversing earlier findings

on identical evidence, the counsel would contend that these two

witnesses are also examined in the main trial as P. W.5 and

P.W.4 respectively in S.C.No.12/2004. The Trial Cou rt in

S.C.No.12/2004 found that evidence of these witness es were

unreliable, contradictory and untrustworthy. But, in the present

- 9 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

case, relies upon their evidence and there are majo r

improvements, omissions, contradictions and new

developments adversely affecting their credibility. The Trial

Court without any fresh evidence, accepted the same

witnesses, who are previously rejected, leading to contradictory

conclusions on identical facts and evidence, violat ing well-

established criminal law principles. The counsel would contend

that in split-up trials, earlier findings have persuasive value and

in the absence of any new evidence, contrary conclu sions are

unsustainable. Relying on unreliable evidence of ch ance

witnesses leads to miscarriage of justice and their evidence is

also not corroborated. The counsel also vehemently contend

that no Test Identification Parade was conducted in respect of

this accused and witnesses claimed that they had ea rlier seen

accused No.6 once in a hotel, which is far too vague to identify

a gunman in a sudden, violent, dusk-time attack. Th ey

introduced a new person, Shivaprasad Shetty, who is not

charge-sheeted and not examined and he was never fi gured in

the original case and this destroys the reliability of their

account.

- 10 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

8. The counsel would further contend that evidence of

P.W.19 contradicts the evidence of P.W.4 regarding earlier

disclosures and material inconsistency ignored by t he Trial

Court. It is also contended that there is no motive , no

conspiracy and no supari. Hence, prosecution case c ollapses

having considered the evidence of P.W.10, P.W.25 and P.W.26.

The motive, if at all, is in existence is only between accused

Nos.1 and 2 and the deceased and not against accuse d No.6.

No evidence either oral or documentary or circumstantial which

shows that there was a prior enmity between accused No.6 and

other accused or the deceased and no proof that accused No.6

was paid any supari. The Trial Court assumed the co nspiracy

without any primary or corroborative evidence. The counsel

also vehemently contend that no link that this accu sed had

committed the offence either forensic, recovery, ballistic and

medical evidence and no weapon was ever recovered a t the

instance of accused No.6. Bullets recovered from the deceased

were not matched to any weapon associated with him. The

firearm recovered in Mumbai is wholly irrelevant and the same

pertains to a different FIR and Ballistic Expert confirms no

connection to the present case and firing time/duration cannot

- 11 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

be determined. In the absence of Ballistic Expert e vidence,

there cannot be any conviction and P.W.38- Doctor a dmitted,

he cannot opine on firing distance or weapon charac teristics

and medical evidence does not support the prosecution case.

9. The counsel would vehemently contend that allege d

abscondence, weak and unreliable circumstances that accused

No.6 is living in Mumbai does not amount to absconding. There

is no evidence that he knew that he was wanted in c onnection

with this case and the Trial Court ever stated this non-existing

circumstance. The counsel would vehemently contend that Trial

Court committed a fundamental error in ignoring ear lier

acquittal and failed to appreciate contradictions between old

and new depositions and relied on unsafe dock ident ification

after a decade. In the absence of any material with regard to

conspiracy, presumed the conspiracy without proof a nd

misused unrelated Mumbai recovery to infer bad char acter and

also ignored the material contradictions, omissions , and

improvements. The counsel would vehemently contend that

when two inconsistent versions exist, the version favouring the

accused must prevail and benefit of doubt must be extended in

- 12 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

favour of the accused and conviction cannot rest on unreliable

chance witnesses. First of all, Dock identification without prior

Test Identification Parade after long delay is worthless and

acquittal of co-accused on identical evidence extends benefit of

doubt and even split-up trials require fresh, indep endent

evaluation and suspicion cannot replace proof beyon d

reasonable doubt. The counsel also vehemently conte nd that

conspiracy must be proved not presumed and there mu st be

motive to commit murder and particularly, lack of ballistic and

scientific evidence is fatal in a shooting case and the Trial Court

ignored the material available on record.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant would further

contend that evidence of P.W.35 is in respect of Mumbai Arms

Act case and there is clear admission that the evid ence of

P.W.35 is not pertaining to this case. The counsel also would

vehemently contend that though P.W.32 is examined, he

deposed before the Court that voluntary statement w as

recorded, but not placed any material before the Co urt that

accused has confessed his act and no confession sta tement is

produced before the Court. Learned counsel also wou ld submit

- 13 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

that Trial Court committed an error in considering the evidence

of P.W.4 and P.W.16 and their evidence do not inspi re the

confidence of the Court and the very evidence of th e said

witnesses was relied upon in the earlier judgment when split up

case was considered and the Court comes to the conc lusion

that their evidence not inspires the confidence of the Court and

the said finding given by the Trial Court is not correct and the

same is not properly appreciated.

11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Plead er

appearing for the respondent-State would vehemently contend

that prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.4 and

P.W.16. The Trial Court also considered the evidence of P.W.4

and P.W.16, since both of them have witnessed the i ncident.

P.W.4 categorically says that he was having acquaintance with

accused as well as the victim and specifically narrated how the

incident had taken place in the chief evidence. She would also

submit that even in the cross-examination, nothing is elicited

from the mouth of P.W.4 to disbelieve the case of prosecution.

She also relied upon the evidence of P.W.16 and con tend that

this witness categorically says that he had witness ed the

- 14 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

incident of accused firing on both the victims i.e., Santhosh

Shetty and Venugopal Nayak. First, this accused fired Santhosh

Shetty and then fired Venugopal Nayak 2 to 3 times which was

also witnessed by another person. This witness spec ifically

deposes before the Court that this appellant only gunshot both

the victims and he was having acquaintance with other accused

as well as victims. He also deposes that having witnessed the

incident, he suddenly ran away from the spot and informed the

same to Vijay, who is his friend and on the next da y, Vijay

informed the same to Police and brought Police to h is house

and he gave the statement. She would also submit th at this

evidence inspires the confidence of the Court. In t he cross-

examination, nothing is elicited to disbelieve the evidence of

this witness. She would also vehemently contend tha t bullets

are seized from the body of both the deceased and the same is

also evident from the FSL report and Post-Mortem re port and

the same supports the case of the prosecution.

12. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State and also conside ring the

- 15 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

material available on record, the points that would arise for

consideration of this Court are:

(1) Whether the prosecution proved the case

against this accused, who is accused No.6

that he himself fired both the

deceased/victims beyond reasonable doubt?

(2) What order?

Point No.(1)

13. We have perused both oral and documentary

evidence available on record. Admittedly, accused Nos.1 and 3

to 5 have been acquitted by the Trial Court and the same is not

challenged by the prosecution and the same has atta ined its

finality. The accused No.7 has filed Criminal Appea l

No.216/2020 and the same has abated on account of h is death.

Now, only accused No.6 remains, who is the appellan t herein

before this Court.

14. The main contention of learned counsel appearin g

for the appellant before this Court is that Trial Court relied upon

the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.16 and those two witn esses are

star witnesses to the prosecution. The prosecution mainly relies

- 16 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

upon seizure of bullets from the body of both the deceased and

no dispute with regard to recovery of bullets from the body of

both the deceased. But, fact remains before the Cou rt is

whether the evidence of P.W.4 inspires the confiden ce of the

Court that this accused itself fired with a revolver on both the

deceased. The evidence of P.W.4 is that he was havi ng

acquaintance with both the accused as well as the victims and

also narrated how an incident has taken place. He a lso states

that he saw the accused Lokesh Bangera and other tw o

accused persons. In the cross-examination, it is elicited from

the mouth of P.W.4 that he was not aware of the accused when

the incident had taken place and when he witnessed the

incident. But, in the chief evidence, he says that he was having

acquaintance with both the accused as well as the v ictims.

Though, he says that on that day, he witnessed this accused,

but says that before the Court itself he is seeing him. But,

categorical admission was given that incident has taken place

15 years ago and now, he cannot say that whether they are the

accused persons or not. Apart from this admission, though he

claims that he had shown the place where the accuse d Vinitha

B. Rai cracked and incident has taken place at 6.45 p.m. and

- 17 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

also though he deposes with regard to particular overt act, but

in the cross-examination, he categorically admits t hat he

cannot tell which accused inflicted injury and in the further

evidence when suggestion was made that these accuse d

persons were responsible for this incident, he did not deny the

same, but only says that he is not aware of the sam e and

categorically admits that when he heard the screami ng sound

and he turned up, at that time, the persons who were there at

the spot ran away. But, he categorically admits that he is not

having any acquaintance with other accused Lokesh B angera

prior to this incident. When these answers are elicited from the

mouth of P.W.4 with regard to very presence of the accused is

concerned, the very admission that he was having

acquaintance with accused as well as victim persons cannot be

believed and the same not inspires the confidence of the Court.

15. The other witness is P.W.16 which the prosecuti on

mainly relies upon. No doubt, this witness in the chief evidence

deposes before the Court as to how an incident has taken

place, he also states that he witnessed the incident and this

accused himself fired at the first instance on Santhosh Shetty

- 18 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

and thereafter to Venugopal Nayak and having witnes sed the

said incident, he ran away from the spot and inform ed the

same to Vijay and Vijay came along with the Police on the next

day and he gave statement to Police that he witness ed the

incident. He also admits that he identified the accused Ganesh,

Lakshman and another, but not identified the appellant. But, in

the cross- examination, answer is elicited from the mouth of

this witness that he has not given the statement in terms of

Exs.D1, D2 and D3 and those statements of this witn ess was

confronted and when he denies the same, the same ar e marked

as exhibit ‘D’ series.

16. It is also important to note that when question was

put to him when was deposing that he is going to hi s friend

Prashanth Shetty's house, he says that he cannot tell in which

village Prasanth Shetty's house is located, but, says that it is in

Muluru and also says that other houses are not located by the

side of each house. It is also his evidence that on the date of

incident, he had taken half day leave and also says that he

went to Muluru by bus, but he is not aware of the bus number.

He also categorically says that when the statement was made

- 19 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

before the Police that on 05.03.2003 when he was pr oceeding

to his uncle's house, he did not make any statement and the

same is marked as Ex.D2. But, he says that when he did not

get the bus, he went by walk and even he says that he cannot

remember the place where he was proceeding, since m any

years had been elapsed and he could not remember th e same.

In the cross-examination made by the counsel, who appears on

behalf of this appellant, answer is elicited that he identified two

persons in the Court and also says that though he h ad

witnessed the car which was found at the spot, he d id not

notice the vehicle number, but the car was in white colour. But

he categorically says that having witnessed the inc ident, he

suddenly left the place. He also says that he canno t say the

distance between Mudipu and the place of incident a nd also

cannot tell the distance between Mudipu to the plac e of

incident. When all these answers are elicited from the mouth of

this witness, he was unable to give any topography of the place

of incident and also the distance. Apart from that, though the

documents exhibit ‘D’ series i.e., Ex.D2 is marked, he could say

where the house of his friend Prashanth Shetty is l ocated.

When such evidence is available before the Court, t he Trial

- 20 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

Court committed an error in relying upon the evidence of P.W.4

and P.W.16 in coming to the conclusion that they ar e the

eyewitnesses to the incident and the answers elicited from the

mouth of these two witnesses do not inspire the confidence of

the Court and not trustworthy and no Test Identific ation in

respect of this appellant.

17. No doubt, learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the State would contend that bullets are

recovered from the body of the victims and no dispu te with

regard to the recovery and the same is also evident from the

FSL report. But, the very case of the prosecution is against this

accused that he only fired on the victims. It is also the case of

the prosecution that this accused was apprehended in 2007 and

incident has taken place in 2003. Even after seizure of revolver

at Mumbai, Ballistic Expert is also examined before the Court,

but, his evidence is also not helpful to the prosecution, since

the witness says that in respect of this incident is concerned,

there is no ballistic report. Apart from that, though bullets are

recovered and seized from the body of victims and w hether

that empty cartridges are fired from the very same revolver

- 21 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

which was seized was also not subjected to any scie ntific

evidence that accused had used the very same revolv er for

firing the victims and there are lapses in conducti ng the

investigation and the evidences which are being relied upon by

the prosecution do not corroborate with each other. Though the

prosecution claim that P.W.4 and P.W.16 are the eye witnesses

to the incident, we have meticulously perused the evidence of

P.W.4 and P.W.16 and their evidence do not inspire the

confidence of the Court.

18. Hence, we do not find any force in the contention of

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

State. However, there is a force in the contention of learned

counsel appearing for the appellant that there is no scientific

evidence with regard to revolver was seized and par ticularly,

the revolver was not marked as a material object be fore the

Court. When the case of the prosecution is that accused himself

fired at the deceased and when there is no scientific evidence

with regard to revolver, the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.16 do

not inspire the confidence of the Court. The Trial Court lost

sight of all these factors into consideration while convicting the

- 22 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

accused. Therefore, we are of the opinion that Tria l Court

committed an error in relying upon the evidence of P.W.4 and

P.W.16 and other material evidence available on rec ord and

there is no chain link between the evidence available on record

and once the Court comes to the conclusion that evi dence of

P.W.4 and P.W.16 do not inspire the confidence of t he Court,

who claims to be the eyewitnesses, their evidence i s not

sufficient to convict the accused and other circums tantial

evidence also not bring home the guilt of the accused for the

offences and charges levelled against him. Apart fr om that,

already case registered against accused No.7 was ab ated and

Trial Court has already given benefit of doubt in f avour of

accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 and not relied upon the ev idence of

these witnesses i.e., P.W.4 and P.W.16 in coming to the

conclusion that P.W.4 and P.W.16, who have been exa mined as

P.W.4 and P.W.5 in S.C.No.12/2004 do not inspire th e

confidence of the Court. When such being the case, the Trial

Court ought not to have convicted the accused only on the

basis of weak piece of evidence available on record .

Accordingly, we answer point No.(1) as ‘negative’.

- 23 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:819-DB

CRL.A No. 219 of 2020

Point No.(2):

19. In view of the discussion made above, we pass t he

following:

ORDER

(i) The criminal appeal is allowed.

(ii) The judgment of conviction and sentence

passed by the Trial Court in S.C.No.101/2013

on the file of VI Additional District and

Sessions Judge and MACT, Dakshina

Kannada, Mangaluru dated 13.12.2019 for

the offences punishable under Sections 109,

120B, 143, 147, 148, 341, 302 read with

Section 149 of IPC is set aside.

(iii) The accused is set at liberty and the Jail

Authority is directed to release him forthwith.

Sd/-

(H.P.SANDESH)

JUDGE

Sd/-

(VENKATESH NAIK T)

JUDGE

ST

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21