Case Note & Summary
The State of Karnataka filed an appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.1.2015 passed by the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C.No.23501/2005. The respondents-accused, Ramesh and Varadevi, were tried and acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 326, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case involved a cognizable and non-bailable offence under Section 326 IPC. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, found the prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused. The State appealed, contending that the trial court's findings were perverse and that the accused should be convicted. The High Court, per Mohan M. Shantanagoudar J., examined the scope of interference in appeals against acquittal. It held that the High Court would not interfere unless the trial court's findings were perverse or based on no evidence. The court noted that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not perverse. Since two views were possible, the view favouring the accused was adopted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378 Cr.P.C. - Scope of Interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal will not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or based on no evidence. If two views are possible, the view favouring the accused must be adopted. (Para 2) B) Indian Penal Code - Grievous Hurt - Section 326 IPC - Cognizable Offence - The offence under Section 326 IPC is cognizable and non-bailable. The trial court had jurisdiction to try the case. (Para 2) C) Evidence - Appreciation of Evidence - Plausible View - The trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not perverse. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the acquittal. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is perverse and warrants interference by the High Court in an appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the II Additional CMM, Bangalore, dated 22.1.2015 in C.C.No.23501/2005 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Scope of interference
- Section 378 Cr.P.C.
- Plausible view
- Perversity
- Grievous hurt
- Section 326 IPC
- Cognizable offence
