BANNAREDDY & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

                        [2018] 4 S.C.R. 623                               623


                     BANNAREDDY & ORS.                                    A
                                  v.
                 STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
                  (Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2018)
                          MARCH 12, 2018                                  B
        [N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
      Penal Code, 1860 – ss.148, 341, 504, 326 r/w.149 –
Prosecution case that accused No.2 picked up quarrel with P.W-2,
thereafter on same day, the accused-appellants armed with weapons
                                                                          C
attacked P.W-2, P.W.-3 and P.W-5 – Certain witnesses intervened
and rescued the complainant-P.W-5 and other victims – Police
registered complaint u/ss.143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 307, 504,
506 r/w. 149 filed by P.W-5 – Trial Court held that prosecution failed
to prove the alleged offences against the accused beyond reasonable
doubt and acquitted the accused persons – However, High Court             D
reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the accused u/
ss.148,341,504, 326 r/w. 149 – On appeal, held: Order passed by
the trial Court reaffirmed – High Court should not have re-
appreciated the evidence in its entirety, especially when there existed
no grave infirmity in the findings of the trial Court – Prosecution
                                                                          E
case suffers from several contradictions and infirmities e.g. the trial
Court rightly pointed out the contradictions in the statements given
by P.Ws-1,2 and P.Ws-3,5 regarding the incident of assault and the
participation of the accused persons – These contradictions were
material ones and cannot be overlooked – No specific assertions
could be proved regarding the role and involvement of the accused         F
persons – Further, certain actions of the victim-respondents
themselves were dubious, for instance admitting themselves later in
a Multi-speciality hospital from a reputed hospital without proper
cause – No documents were produced to clarify the same – Medical
evidences produced by the victims prove that, they had not sustained
                                                                          G
any fatal injuries – Prosecution was not able to establish the guilt
of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
     HELD: 1. The trial court has rightly pointed out the
contradictions in the statements given by P.W.1 and P.W.2                 H
                              623
624            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A     regarding the incident of assault and the participation of the
      accused persons. These contradictions are material ones and
      cannot be overlooked. [Para 17] [630-D-E]
             2. Similarly, after the perusal of the statements of P.W.3
      and P.W.5, there exist contradictions with regard to the incident
B     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 and P.W.13, other
      witnesses have turned hostile. Apart from the other victims, P.W.1
C     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. [Para 18] [630-E-G]
D            3. Another major contradiction in the prosecution’s version,
      as rightly noted by the trial court, is the statement of P.W.14,
      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
E     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.
      [Para 19] [630-H; 631-A]
            4. It is to be noted that certain actions of the victims were
      inexplicable drawing our suspicion specifically the behavior of
F     the victim after the incident. It is an admitted fact that after the
      said incident the victims were taken to the Government Hospital.
      As P.W.5 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 for further treatment. But the trial court noted that no
G     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 who treated the victims both in
      the well reputed KIMS Hospital and later in Multi Speciality
      Hospital, admitted that KIMS Hospital is well equipped to treat
H
 BANNAREDDY & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.                        625


the victims, then it is unclear why were the victims asked to shift    A
to Multi Speciality 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 Multi Speciality Hospital,
                                                                       B
particularly, P.W.5, in spite of not being referred by any medical
officer got himself admitted to KIMS Hospital and later to Multi
Speciality Hospital. The trial court thereby noted that the victims
were trying to generate incriminating evidences against the
accused appellants. [Para 21] [631-D-H]
      5. Coming further to address the guilt of the accused under      C
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 have been mentioned in the statements of the victims and
other witnesses. But no mens rea or actus reus could be attributed     D
towards the rest of the accused persons to establish their guilt
under Section 149 of the IPC. [Para 22] [632-A-B]
      6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,
the prosecution was not able to establish the guilt of the accused
persons beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the High Court should        E
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              F
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. [Para 27] [633-C-E]
      Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and Ors. v. State of                  G
      Maharashtra (2008) 11 SCC 186; Rabindra Kumar Pal
      @ Dara Singh v. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490 :
      [2011] 1 SCR 929 – referred to.

                                                                       H
626            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A                             Case Law Reference
      (2008) 11 SCC 186                 referred to              Para 11
      [2011] 1 SCR 929                  referred to              Para 12
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
B     382 of 2018.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2017 by the High Court
      of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench in Criminal Appeal no. 100108/2014]
           H. N. Nagamohan Das, Sr. Adv., C. M. Angadi, B. V. Somapur,
      Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the Appellants.
C
            Joseph Aristotle S., Ashish Yadav, N. D. B. Raju, Ms. Krishna
      Bipin, Uday Dubey, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            N. V. RAMANA, J. 1. Leave granted.
D           2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment
      dated 29th 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-
E
             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;

F            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
G
      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
H
  BANNAREDDY & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.                               627
                [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

period of four years and shall pay a fine of Rs. 6000/-, in default of         A
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         B
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        C
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,               D
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,          E
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              F
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            G
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.
                                                                               H
628            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A           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
B
      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.
C     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
D     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.
E
             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
F     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,
G     (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
H
  BANNAREDDY & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.                               629
                [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

      record, one favouring the accused and one against the                    A
      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
                                                                               B
      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].
                                                                               C
      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.                                                             D
      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               E
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),              F
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          G
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
                                                                               H
630             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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
C     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
D
      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.
E
             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
F     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
G     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
H
  BANNAREDDY & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.                               631
                [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

in the said fight, as it was happening in the vicinity of his house. But, in   A
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         B
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          C
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     D
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,           E
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        F
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,       G
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.
                                                                               H
632            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A           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
B
      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
C     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
D     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
E     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
F     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
G     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
H
  BANNAREDDY & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.                                  633
                [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

about the collection of blood samples, especially when it is an admitted          A
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         B
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      C
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             D
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                   E
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            F
any, shall also stand disposed of.


Ankit Gyan                                                      Appeal allowed.

                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H