Case Note & Summary
The State of Karnataka appealed against the judgment dated 31.08.2019 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, U.K. Karwar sitting at Sirsi itinerary at Yellapur, in Criminal Appeal No.184/2013, whereby the accused-respondent Mohan Chandrakant Ghadi was acquitted of offences under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. The trial court had convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment. The appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable and the medical evidence did not corroborate the alleged assault. The High Court, in the present appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) CrPC, examined the evidence and found that the appellate court's findings were not perverse. The eyewitnesses turned hostile, and the injured witness's testimony was inconsistent with the medical report. The High Court held that the appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that there was no ground to interfere with the acquittal. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Scope of Interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal will not interfere unless the findings of the lower appellate court are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellate court's appreciation of evidence and conclusion that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable and the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case was a plausible view, and hence the acquittal was upheld. (Paras 1-10)
B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 324, 326, 504 read with 34 - Assault and Hurt - The prosecution failed to prove the charges as the eyewitnesses turned hostile and the injured witness's testimony was inconsistent with the medical evidence. The court held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate court is perverse and warrants interference by this Court under Section 378 CrPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the acquittal of the accused. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 378 CrPC
- Scope of interference in acquittal appeals
- Appreciation of evidence
- Unreliable witnesses
- Benefit of doubt
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (03) 10
Criminal Appeal No.100177/2020
H.T.Narendra Prasad, T.G.Shivashankare Gowda
Sri V.M.Banakar (Addl. SPP) for appellant, Sri Shivasai M.Patil for respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal by the State
Remedy Sought
The State sought leave to appeal and to set aside the acquittal and confirm the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
Filing Reason
The State challenged the appellate court's judgment acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge and JMFC, Haliyal) convicted the accused in C.C.No.176/2010 dated 16/12/2013. The appellate court (I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, U.K. Karwar) acquitted the accused in Criminal Appeal No.184/2013 dated 31/08/2019.
Issues
Whether the appellate court's judgment of acquittal is perverse and warrants interference by the High Court under Section 378 CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant/State argued that the appellate court erred in acquitting the accused despite sufficient evidence.
The respondent/accused argued that the acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and should not be interfered with.
Ratio Decidendi
In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, the High Court will not interfere unless the findings of the lower appellate court are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellate court's appreciation of evidence, finding the prosecution witnesses unreliable and the medical evidence inconsistent, was a plausible view, and hence the acquittal was upheld.
Judgment Excerpts
The State has challenged the Judgment dated 31.08.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.184/2013 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, U.K. Karwar sitting at Sirsi itinerary at Yellapur (for short, ‘the appellate Court’) acquitting the accused No.1/respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the accused on 16/12/2013. The accused appealed to the Sessions Court, which acquitted him on 31/08/2019. The State then appealed to the High Court under Section 378 CrPC, which dismissed the appeal on 28/03/2023.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 378(1), 378(3)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 341, 324, 326, 504, 34
