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
3. Whether prosecution further prove
beyond all reasonable doubts that, on the same
date, time and place, accused being the
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?
4. 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 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
5. Whether prosecution further prove
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?
6. Whether prosecution further prove
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*