H. D. SUNDARA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 47 · Decided: 26-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 47 : 2023 INSC 858
47
CASE DETAILS
H. D. SUNDARA & ORS.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The question which arose for consideration 
was whether the High Court was justifi ed in setting aside the order of 
acquittal passed by the trial court.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 378 – Appeal against 
acquittal – Matter pertaining to dispute over property between accused 
and the family of complainant – Accused assaulted the complainant 
and his family – Acquittal of all the accused by the trial court, however 
conviction for the off ences punishable u/s. 304 Part I and s. 324/149 IPC 
by the High Court – Correctness: 
Held: No fi ndings recorded by the High Court after re-appreciating 
the evidence, no discussion about the testimony of eyewitnesses and no 
fi nding to indicate that the High Court considered the question whether 
the view taken by the trial court was a possible view – High Court held the 
accused guilty without recording any reasons and without recording any 
fi nding regarding the role played by the accused individually and collectively 
– Nothing stated as to who were the authors of the injuries sustained by 
deceased and injured witnesses – No fi nding as to how s.149 IPC attracted – 
Thus, the High Court, as an appellate court, while hearing the appeal against 
acquittal, has not done its duty – However, matter cannot be remanded back 
since the off ence took place about two decades back – Findings of the trial 
court and evidence of eyewitnesses have been perused – Trial court was 
unable to accept the testimony of the witnesses after in-depth scrutiny –
48  
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
Conclusions recorded by the trial court were possible conclusions – Thus, 
the impugned judgment set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 304 Part I and 
324/149 . [Paras 11-15]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 378 – Appeal against 
acquittal – Exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with 
an appeal against acquittal u/s. 378 – General principles – Stated.
[Paras 7 and 8]
Appeal against acquittal – Appreciation of evidence:
Held: In many cases, the trial judge passing the order of acquittal 
has an occasion to record the oral testimony of all material witnesses 
– While deciding about the reliability of the version of prosecution 
witnesses, their demeanour remains in the back of the mind of the trial 
judge – Demeanour of a witness frequently furnishes a clue to the weight 
of his testimony – It has to be borne in mind while dealing with an appeal 
against acquittal. [Para 9]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Law of Evidence by Sarkar – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.247 
of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2010 of the High Court of 
Karnataka at Bangalore in CRLA No.1807 of 2004.
Appearances:
S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., C. B. Gururaj, Shreyas Kaushal, Sudhakaran, 
Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Animesh Dubey, Advs. for the Appellants.
Nishanth Patil, AAG, V. N. Raghupathy, Mahendra Pal Gupta, Md. 
Apzal Ansari, Ayush P. Shah, Vignesh Adithiya S., Shubhranshu Padhi, 
Advs. for the Respondent.
49
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. This is an appeal preferred by the accused challenging the impugned 
judgment of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore by which the order of 
their acquittal, passed by the Sessions Court, was overturned. The appellants 
were convicted for the off ences punishable under Part I of Section 304 and 
Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 
‘IPC’). They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven 
years and pay a fi ne of Rs. 5,000/-.
 FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. We may refer to a few factual aspects of the case. PW-1 
(Jagadeesha) is the complainant. The complainant’s family had property 
in the village Hebbale. The appellant no.1 - accused no.1-Mariyappa is 
PW-1’s uncle, with whom PW-1’s family was having a dispute over water. 
Manjunatha and Shivarama are the brothers of PW-1, who are the victims 
of the off ence. On 29th August 1999, both entered the village Hebbale to 
engage labourers for plucking ginger. PW-1 followed them. On the road to 
the village, he found that PW-2 (Sundara) and PW-6 (Ravi) were sitting on 
a culvert. When he was talking to them, they heard the hu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.