Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rajavva W/O Ujanappa Chavhan vs Mallesh S/O Maanappa Haranshikari on 27 March, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No.100223/2023
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS 27th DAY OF, MARCH 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100223 OF 2023 (A)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RAJAVVA
W/O. UJANAPPA CHAVHAN @ HARANSHIKARI
AGED 42 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
BYAHATTI, DHARWAD DIST.
PIN-580023.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.P. KANDAGAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA KALMATH
Date: 2025.03.28
1. MALLESH,
11:17:41 +0530
S/O. MAANAPPA HARANSHIKARI
AGED 22 YEARS,
OCC. LABOURER,
R/O. ALAGAWADI,
TQ. NAVALGUND,
DHARWAD DISTRICT-580011.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH P L DHARWAD WOMEN P S,
-2-
CRL.A No.100223/2023
DHARWAD,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.M. JAVED, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP. FOR R2;
PW1-VICTIM-SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372
OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, SEEKING TO PASS AN
ORDER CALLING FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE TRIAL COURT,
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
20.06.2022 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS AND SPL. JUDGE, DHARWAD IN SPL. SC
NO.41/2020 AND PASS AN ORDER CONVICTING THE FIRST
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION
363, 376 AND 506 IPC, AND SECTION.6 OF THE POCSO ACT,
2012 IN SPL. S.C.NO.41/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPL. JUDGE
DHARWAD.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 14.03.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-3-
CRL.A No.100223/2023
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
Appellant Smt. Rajavva who is the complainant and
mother of victim, has preferred this appeal under proviso of
Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the
judgment of acquittal dated 20th June 2022 passed in SC No.41
of 2020 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge Dharwad (for short, herein in referred to as the
“trial Court”). It is relevant to mention here that the state has
not preferred appeal against the include judgment of acquittal
and hence State is made as a respondent No.2 in this appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the Police
Inspector, Women Police Station, Dharwad has filed charge-
sheet against the accused for offences punishable under
Sections 363, 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 6
of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for
brevity hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act“). It is
alleged in the charge-sheet that on 21st August 2020 at about
-4-
CRL.A No.100223/2023
3.00 pm, the victim who is the daughter of the complainant
studying seventh standard, was alone in the house. Accused
came to house and kidnapped the victim from her house at
Prabhunagar, Honnapura without the knowledge of their
parents/guardians and took her in a bus to an under
construction building near Jamadaghni Temple near Saundatti
Yellamana Gudda and by threatening the victim and kept her in
the room for four days and committed penetrative sexual
intercourse with the victim, and finally at the request of the
victim, accused dropped her to her village in the bus on 25th
August 2020. Thus, accused committed offence punishable
under Sections 363, 376 And 506 of Indian Penal Code and
Section 6 of POCSO Act.
4. After filing charge-sheet, cognizance was taken
against the accused and case was registered in Special Case
No.41 of 2020. Accused was produced before the trial Court
and thereafter he was enlarged on bail. Upon hearing on
charges, the Special Court framed charges for alleged
commission of offences and the same were read over and
explained to the accused in the language known to him.
Having understood the same accused, pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused
-5-
CRL.A No.100223/2023
prosecution has examine fourteen witnesses as PWs1 to 14 and
marked 34 documents as Exhibits P1 to P34 and nine material
objects were marked as MOs1 to 9. On closure of the
prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally
denied evidence of prosecution witness appearing against him
and he has not chosen to adduce any defence evidence on his
behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial
Court has acquitted the accused. Being accrued by this
judgment of acquittal, the mother of the victim has preferred
this appeal.
5. Sri S.P. Kundagol, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant submit that evidence on record is sufficient to pass
the order of conviction on the accused for the offence
punishable under Sections 363, 376, 506 of Indian Penal Code
and Section 6 of POCSO Act. The trial Court has committed
grave error in not considering, both oral and documentary
evidences which are sufficient to hold that the offence alleged
against the accused have been proved by the prosecution
beyond any doubt. The trial Court has also erred in not
considering that, apart from oral evidence of the victim, there
are other evidences which prove the charges against the
-6-
CRL.A No.100223/2023
accused. He would further submit that though the victim has
supported the case of prosecution while recording the
statement under Section 164(5) of Indian Evidence Act, but
during trial, she has not supported the case of prosecution.
PW2, the mother of victim supported the case of prosecution.
On all these grounds he sought to allow the appeal.
6. On the other hand, Sri R.M. Javeed, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.1-accused, submitted that the trial
court has properly appreciated evidence on record in
accordance with law and facts and there are no grounds to
interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal and
accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on
perusal of material placed before us, the following points would
arise for our consideration:
1. Whether the appellant has made out a ground to
interfere with the impugned judgment of
acquittal?
2. What order?
8. Our answer to the above points is:
Point No.1: In the negative
-7-
CRL.A No.100223/2023Point No.2: As per final order
Regarding point no.1
9. Before adverting to the actual facts of the case and
appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to refer the dictum of
Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding scope and power of Appellate
Court in appeal against the order of acquittal.
10. In the case of MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI & OTHERS v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 676,
at paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is held thus:
“23. While considering the scope of power of the
appellate court in an appeal against the order of
acquittal, after referring to various judgments,
in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007)4 SCC 415,
this Court summarised the principle as under:-
“42. From the above decisions, in our
considered view, the following general principles
regarding powers of the appellate court while
dealing with an appeal against an order of
acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power
to review, reappreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal
is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 puts no limitation, restriction or
condition on exercise of such power and an
appellate court on the evidence before it
-8-
CRL.A No.100223/2023may reach its own conclusion, both on
questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as,
“substantial and compelling reasons”,
“good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong
circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”,
“glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to
curtail extensive powers of an appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of
“flourishes of language” to emphasise the
reluctance of an appellate court to interfere
with acquittal than to curtail the power of
the court to review the evidence and to
come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however,
must bear in mind that in case of acquittal,
there is double presumption in favour of
the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the
fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence
is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial court.”
11. In the case of MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v. STATE
OF KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS reported in 2019 SCC
ONLINE 69, at paragraph 16 of the judgment it is held as under:
-9-
CRL.A No.100223/2023
“16. The High Court in the present case was
dealing with an appeal against acquittal. In such a case,
it is well settled that the High Court will not interfere
with an order of acquittal merely because it opines that
a different view is possible or even preferable. The High
Court, in other words, should not interfere with an order
of acquittal merely because two views are possible. The
interference of the High Court in such cases is governed
by well-established principles. According to these
principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence
by the trial court is capricious or its conclusions are
without evidence that the High Court may reverse an
order of acquittal. The High Court may be justified in
interfering where it finds that the order of acquittal is
not in accordance with law and that the approach of the
trial court has led to a miscarriage of justice. …”
12. In the case of HARI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF
RAJASTHAN reported in 2000 SCC ONLINE 933, at paragraph 4
of the judgment, it is observed thus:
“4. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned
Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan
on the other hand contended that the power of the High
Court while hearing an appeal against an order of
acquittal is in no way different from the power while
hearing an appeal against conviction and the Court,
therefore was fully justified in re-appreciating the entire
evidence, upon which the order of acquittal was based.
The High Court having examined the reasons of the
learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of
– 10 –
CRL.A No.100223/2023
PWs 6 & 7 and having arrived at the conclusion, that
those reasons are in the realm of conjectures and there
has been gross miscarriage of justice and the mis-
appreciation of the evidence on record is the basis for
acquittal, was fully entitled to set aside an order of
acquittal and no error can be said to have been
committed. It is too well settled that the power of the
High Court, while hearing an appeal against an acquittal
is as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a
conviction and it had full power to re- appreciate the
entire evidence, but if two views on the evidence are
reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and
the other indicating conviction, then the High Court
would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal,
merely because it feels that it would sitting as a trial
court, have taken the other view. While re- appreciating
the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the
High Court should give proper weight and consideration
to the views of the learned trial Judge. But if the
judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely
perverse, legally erroneous and based on wrong
appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and
proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of
acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise,
there would be gross miscarriage of justice….”
13. In the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KISTOORA
RAM reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE 684, at paragraph 8 of the
judgment it is held as under:
– 11 –
CRL.A No.100223/2023
“8. The scope of interference in an appeal
against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that
the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it
is not permissible to interfere with the finding of
acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not
permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely
because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction
to be more probable. The interference would be
warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.”
14. In the case of MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2016)10 SCC 220, at
paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is observed thus:
“12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is
presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a
competent court after a full-fledged trial, and once the
trial court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then
the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on
the appellate court while dealing with the appeal. No
doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the
power of the appellate court to review, reappreciate and
reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon
which the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has
to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless
there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere
with the order of acquittal. The appellate court while
passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a
conclusion.”
– 12 –
CRL.A No.100223/2023
15. We have examined the materials placed before us. In
the charge-sheet, the Investigating Officer has cited nineteen
witnesses. Out of them, nine witnesses are examined as PWs1
to 9.
16. CW8-said to be the victim, is examined as PW1. She
has deposed in her evidence that CW1 and 9 are her parents.
She knows CWs2 and 3. Herself and her parents were residing
at Kambaraganavi village in the year 2020 and now they are
staying at Byahatti. Her parents are doing coolie work in
agriculture lands. Her parents have got five children including
her and she do not know her date of birth. She has studied up
to 7th standard at Honnapur Government Primary School. She
has further stated that accused is known to her, and he is not
her their relative and she do not know the native place of the
accused or his residence. She also stated that accused has not
visited their house anytime or accused has taken her to any
place, including Yellammana Gudda. She has also deposed that
accused has not threatened her. She has further post that
accused has not committed any offence upon her. They have
not stayed in Yellammana Gudda. Accused has not left her
anywhere and she has not stated about the incident to her
parents. It is her mother who has lodged the complaint and
– 13 –
CRL.A No.100223/2023
she does not know the reason for lodging the complaint. She
has also stated that police has not recorded any statement
through video not taken her before any medical officer. She
has not given the history of incident before the medical officer.
She has also stated that doctor has not collected any article
pertaining to her. She has identified her signature on
Panchama, which is marked as Exhibit P1. She has not given
any statement before the Court. She has not informed the
incident before the Court. The sealed packet of statement of
fitness is marked as Exhibit P5 and the signature of witness is
marked as Exhibit P5(a). This witness has been treated as
hostile witness with the permission of the Court and the learned
Public Prosecutor has cross-examined her. Even during her
cross-examination, the prosecution has not elicited any answer
so to attract the alleged commission of offence. But during the
course of cross-examination, she has denied as to the
statement given before the Court as per Exhibit P5.
17. Smt. Rajamma, mother of the victim examined as
PW2, has deposed in her evidence that Victim is her daughter,
CW9 is her husband and she knows CW2 and 3 and they were
staying at Jai Bharat Colony, Alnavar in the year 2020. One
year back, the accused and his mother came and took her
– 14 –
CRL.A No.100223/2023
daughter for fair. After five days, they left her daughter in the
Bus stand. She had advised her daughter for bathing and to
change her dress. She has further deposed that her daughter
has planned to go to Alagawadi with others. They have caught
hold of her daughter at Shivanagari village and she had lodged
the complaint as per Exhibit P8. Police have conducted
Panchanama which is marked as Exhibit P9. Police have also
snapped photo which is marked as Exhibit P10. She has
deposed that her daughter told her that accused has committed
penetrative sexual assault upon her and her daughter has given
statement to police also. This witness is treated as hostile
witness and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor with
the permission of the Court. In her cross-examination, she has
admitted that on 21st August 2020 at about 3.00 pm, accused
kidnapped her daughter by giving false promise when they
were not present at home. It is also admitted that they were
searching their daughter on 21st August 2020 and the accused
has left her daughter and went away. Her daughter has told
her that the accused has kidnapped her from their house and in
a bus took her to Yellammna Gudda and kept in a room there
for five days and committed repeated forcible penetrative
sexual assault upon her and dropped her back in a bus. Hence,
– 15 –
CRL.A No.100223/2023
she gave complaint against accused for the alleged sexual
assault.
18. CW2-Maruti Tayappa Annigeri and CW3-Prahlad
Govindappa Annigeri examined as PWs3 & 4, have not
supported the case of prosecution.
19. CW4-Subhas Chavhanand CW5 Shankar, examined as
PWs5 & 6 said to be the attesters to Panchanama Exhibit P1,
have not supported the case of prosecution.
20. CW18-Sheela Jamboti, Women Police Inspector
examined as PW7, has deposed that as per the direction of CW
19, on 02nd September, 2020, she has recorded statement of
the victim marked as Exhibit P7, and handed over the same to
CW 19.
21. CW7-Kashappa Madar examined as PW8, has deposed
as to Exhibit P11 and seizure of MOs5 to 15.
22. CW11-Dr. Prabhu Senior Specialist District Hospital,
Dharwad has deposed in his evidence as to the examination of
the accused and issuance of provisional medical certificate
Exhibit P17 at the request of police as per Exhibit P15 dated
23rd October, 2020 and issuance of report as per Exhibit P17 as
– 16 –
CRL.A No.100223/2023
per request of police and request of witness vide Exhibits P15
and 16 respectively.
23. CW10-Dr Neeta Beelagi, Senior Specialist, District
Hospital, Dharwad examined as PW10. She has deposed as to
examination of victim, genetically and medically and as to
issuance of final opinion as per Exhibit P24. She has deposed
that she cannot say the possibility of sexual assault upon the
victim based on record.
24. CW12 Vimla Sanu, Incharge Head Mistress,
Government Higher Primary School, Honnapur, examined as
PW11 has deposed as to issuance of Transfer Certificate Exhibit
P26 and also issuance study certificate.
25. CW9-Ujanappa Haranashikari who is the father of the
victim examined as PW12, has deposed that he do not know
the date of birth of the victim. Accused is his relative. They
were staying at Jai Bharat colony, Alnavar in the year 2019-20.
He, his wife and children were staying therein. They used to go
to work as coolies in the agriculture lands from 7.00 am to 6.00
pm and children used to attend classes. He has deposed that
the accused has taken his daughter from Jai Bharat colony to
Yellamana Gudda about two years back and when they
– 17 –
CRL.A No.100223/2023
returned to home at 6.00 pm, victim-daughter was not present
at home. They have searched at different places and could not
trace out their daughter. He has deposed that after five days,
her daughter was brought by the mother of accused and a
relative. His daughter has not told anything about incident and
he do not know about the offence committed by the accused
upon his daughter and he has not given any statement to the
Police. Even during the cross-examination by the Public
Prosecutor, after treating him has hostile witness with the
permission of the Court, he has denied the statement recorded
by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, which is marked as Exhibit P29.
26. CW17-Parimala Muragod, Women Police Constable
No.804, Office of Inspector of Police Garag, examined as PW13
has deposed that she has typed Exhibits P11 and P13 as per
the direction of the Investigating Officer Police inspector. She
has got snapped the photos as per Exhibits P2 to P4 and Exhibit
P10. She has also issued certificate under Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act as per Exhibit P30. She has videographed
the statement of the victim through her mobile phone as per
Exhibit P6. The video record from her mobile has been
transformed into DVD as per Exhibit P6.
– 18 –
CRL.A No.100223/2023
27. CW19-Basavaraj Kamanbailu, Police Inspector
examined as PW14 has deposed as to the investigation
conducted by him.
28. To prove the offence under Section, 363 of IPC, the
prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients:
“(a) Essential Ingredients.- An offence under Section
363 has following essentials:
(i) That the accused did:
(a) Forceful compulsion or inducement by
deceitful means;
(b) The object of such compulsion or inducement
must be the going of a person from any
place;
(ii) That such kidnapping of any person was done from
India or from the lawful guardianship
(b) Evidence.- To bring an offence, under Section 363 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the prosecution is to
establish (a) the accused conveyed the victim beyond the
limits of India; (b) that this removal was without the
consent of the victim or of any person legally authorized
to consent removal;
or
(a) The accused has either taken or enticed away
(voluntary accompaniment excepted) a minor; (b) the
– 19 –
CRL.A No.100223/2023
said minor if a male was under 167 years of age or if a
female was under 18 years of age on the date of taking or
enticing; (c) that the said taking or enticing has been
made out of the keeping of a lawful guardian or a de facto
guardian lawfully entrusted with the keeping of the minor
without the consent of such guardian;
or
(a) the accused has either takes or enticed away a person
or unsound mind; (b) this taking or enticing has been
made out of the keeping of lawful guardian or de facto
guardian lawfully entrusted with the keeping of the person
of unsound mind; (c) that this removal of person of
unsound mind has been effected without the consent of
such guardian.”
29. In the case on hand, the victim has not supported the
case of the prosecution. Even in her cross-examination,
prosecution has failed to elicit any favourable answers to
attract the alleged commission of offences under Section 363 of
Indian Penal Code. Parents of victim PWs2 and 12 have also not
deposed anything as alleged kidnap. The trial Court has
properly appreciated the evidence record and acquitted the
accused.
30. In order to establish the charges against the accused
under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of
the POCSO Act, the prosecution primarily relied on the
– 20 –
CRL.A No.100223/2023
testimony of the victim-PW1. However, during the trial, PW1
did not support the case of the prosecution. It was the
contention of the prosecution that the victim had disclosed to
her mother about the repeated acts of forcible penetrative
sexual assault committed by the accused. Contrary to this
assertion, the victim, while deposing on oath before the Court,
unequivocally stated that she had not informed her parents
about any such incident. Furthermore, the father of the victim,
who was examined as PW12, also did not make any statement
corroborating the alleged acts of sexual assault on his
daughter.
31. Additionally, the prosecution placed reliance on the
statement of the victim recorded under Section 164(5) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, which was marked as Exhibit P5.
In this statement, the victim had provided details regarding the
alleged forcible intercourse by the accused. However, it is a
well-settled principle of law that a statement recorded under
Section 164(5) of Cr.PC. does not have substantive evidentiary
value. Such a statement is merely an improvement upon a
statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC by the
Investigating Officer and can only be used for the purposes of
contradiction or corroboration during cross-examination. Given
– 21 –
CRL.A No.100223/2023
that, the victim did not make any deposition before the Court
supporting the allegations of sexual assault, the prosecution
could not derive any evidentiary benefit from her earlier
statement recorded under Section 164(5) of CrPC, as it
remained uncorroborated by any other independent evidence.
As a result, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond a reasonable doubt solely on the basis of the
victim’s prior statement.
32. Moreover, the prosecution’s case was not supported
by any conclusive medical evidence. Exhibit P24-medical
report issued by the Medical Officer, provided a final opinion on
the genital examination of the victim, taking into consideration
the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report dated 26th
November 2020. The report explicitly stated that there were
no signs suggestive of recent sexual intercourse or assault.
This crucial medical finding further weakened the prosecution’s
case, as it failed to provide any physical evidence
substantiating the allegations of penetrative sexual assault.
33. The testimony of PW10-Dr. Neeta Beelagi, who
conducted the medical examination of the victim, also aligned
with the findings of Exhibit P24. In her deposition before the
– 22 –
CRL.A No.100223/2023
Court, she confirmed that there were no medical indications of
recent sexual activity or forceful penetration. In light of these
medical findings, the trial Court took a holistic view of the
evidence presented and concluded that there was no credible,
acceptable, or convincing proof to establish the guilt of the
accused. Consequently, owing to the absence of direct
testimony from the victim, lack of corroborative evidence from
her parents, and the non-availability of medical findings
supporting the allegations, the trial Court held that the
prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond a
reasonable doubt. Giving the benefit of doubt to the accused,
the trial Court proceeded to acquit him of all charges.
34. On appreciation, re-examination and reconsideration
of the entire evidence on record and also upon keeping in mind,
the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, we do not find
any error or legal illegality/infirmity in the impugned judgment
of acquittal. Hence, we answer point number one in the
negative.
Regarding Point No.2:
35. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, we
proceed to pass the following:
– 23 –
CRL.A No.100223/2023
ORDER
(i) Appeal is dismissed;
(ii) Judgment of acquittal dated 20th June 2022
passed in SC No.41 of 2020 by the II Additional
District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge
Dharwad is confirmed;
(iii) Registry to send back the trial Court records
along with the copy of this judgment to the
concerned Court.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G. BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
[ad_1]
Source link