LexC.K. DASEGOWDA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 295 C.K. DASEGOWDA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No.1381 of 2014) JULY 15, 2014 [DIPAK MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - s. 324 rlw s. 34 - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons - Conviction - Sustainability - Accused-appellants allegedly attacked PW1 and PW3 with C deadly weapons and caused them injuries -Trial court gave them benefit of doubt and ordered their acquittal - Appeal before High Court which set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appellants u/s.324 rlw s.34 /PC - Propriety - Held: High Court erred in reversing the order of trial court - o Legal principles laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Kamataka applied - High Court erred in setting aside the order of acquittal of appellants in absence of any legal and factual evidence on record to prove· the findings and reasons recorded in the judgment of the trial E court as perverse - Order of acquittal by the trial court reinforced - Appeal against acquittal. ' The accused-appellants allegedly attacked PW1 and PW3 with deadly weapons and caused them injuries. They were charge-sheeted for committing offences under F Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307 read with Section 114 IPC. The trial court gave benefit of doubt to the appellants and ordered their acquittal. Aggrieved, the State filed appeal before the High Court which set aside the order of acquittal as passed by the trial court; and G held that from the nature and manner of assault, it could be said that the appellants were guilty under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC for causing injuries to PW-1 and PW-3 and accordingly convicted them. 295 H 296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A In the instant appeal, the question which arose for consideration before this Court was whether the High Court erred in reversing the order of the trial court. The appellants contended that the High Court erred 8 in reversing the order of the trial court since the trial court had acquitted the accused-appellants only after proper appreciation of the evidence on record and inconsistencies and contradictions found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses; and that noticing the previous C enmity between the parties, delay in recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses and also statement of eye witness, it had held that a reasonable doubt was created as to the guilt of the accused. The appellants further contended that conviction of the accused-appellants under Section 324 of IPC read with D Section 34 was absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the above provisions of IPC; that there was discrepancy regarding the names of the assailants in the FIR and in the wound certificate and further that the motive behind the alleged assault by the accused· E appellants was also not proved by the prosecution b~ adducing evidence. Allowing the appeal, the Court F HELD:1.1. In the instant case, the facts and the evidence on record made it clear that the High Court erred in reversing the order of the trial court in the absence of any substantial material evidence on record which regarded the decision of the trial court as perverse. [Para 16] [301-E] G 1.2. From the legal principles laid down by this Court in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, and applying the same to the facts and evidence on record of this case, it is clear that the High Court erred in setting H aside the order of the acquittal of the appellants in the C.K. DASEGOWDA & ORS. v. STATE OF 297 KARNATAK~ absence of any legal and factual evidence on record to A . prove the findings and reasons recorded in the judgment ! of the trial court as perverse. The contentions urged on · behalf of the appellants are well founded as the same are in· conformity with the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The order of the Hjgh Court is therefore B set aside and the order of acquittal by the trial court is reinforced. [Paras 18, 19] [304-E-G] Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka 2007 (2) SCR 630:(2007) 4 sec 415 - held applicable. c Case Law Reference : 2007 (2) SCR 630 held applicable Para 17 CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1381 of 2014. D From the Judgment and Order dated 11.08.2010 in CRLA 1256/2005 of the High Court of Karriataka at Bangalore. Kiran Suri, Apurva Upmanyu, Dr. Vipin Gupta for the. E Appellants. V
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.