MANJUNATH GANESH HEGDE & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 452 · Decided: 05-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

'r.. 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 452 
A 
MANJUNATH GANESH HEGDE & ORS. 
~ 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
_(Criminal Appeal No. 826 of 2002) 
NOVEMBER 5, 2008 
B 
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Appeal - Criminal appeal - Power of First appellate 
i 
Court/High Court- Exercise of- Scope ~ Trial court acquitted 
I 
"· 
c accused of all charges - Acquittal set aside by High Court 
for some of the -offences, without indicating reasons - Propriety 
of - Held: Not proper - High Court while exercising appellate 
power as first appellate court ought to have considered the 
evidence of prosecution witnesses - Matter remitted to High 
D Court. 
Charges were framed against the appellants-
... 
,_____ 
accused persons under ss.341, 324, 326, 504, 506, r.w. 
. 
' 
s.34 IPC. Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons on 
E 
th~ ground that the prosecution failed to prove its case. 
High Court partly allowed the appeal and set aside the 
acquittal for offences punishable under ss.324 and 325, 
IPC read with s. 34, IPC. Hence the instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
F Court, the Court 
_...._ 
":;-
HELD: In a brief order, the High Court partly allowed 
the appeal, but there was no reasoning or basis as to 
what weighed with the High Court in confirming the order 
....
of acquittal recorded in favour of the appellants-accused 
G for certain offences and for setting aside the order of 
acquittal and ordering conviction of the accused for 
l. 
offences punishable under ss. 324 and 325 read with s.34, 
.__
' 
IPC. The High Court was exercising appellate power as 
H 
452 
MANJUNATH GANESH HEGDE & ORS. v. STATE OF 
453 
KARNATAKA 
y) 
the first appellate Court. It was, therefore, expected of the 
A 
High Court to consider the evidence of Prosecution 
Witnesses, particularly because they were eye-witnesses 
as also injured witnesses. The High Court had failed to 
discharge its duty of exercising appellate power as a 
regular court of appeal. [Paras 13 and 14) [456-F-H; 457-
B 
A, B] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 826 of 2002. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 6.2.2002 of the c 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. Appeal No. 775 
of 2001. 
Kiran Suri for the Appellants. 
A. Rohan Singh and Sanjay R. Hegde for the Respondent. 
D 
-..,,-
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-
accused against the order of conviction recorded by the High 
E 
Court of Karnataka on February 06, 2002 in Criminal Appeal 
No. 775 of 2001. 
2. To appreciate the cas,e of the appellants, few relevant 
facts may be noted. 
F 
3. It was the case of the prosecution that on January 04, 
2000, at about 3.00 p.m., near Kallaimane Cross at village 
Tatagar, Taluka Yellapur, appellant-accused attacked 
complainant Gopal Sitaram Hegde with stones and wooden 
sticks. They also attacked and caused injuries to Nagesh 
G 
Ganapati Bandekar and Smt. Nagaveni. The accused persons 
also administered threat to kill Gopal Hegde. All the accused 
"I· 
thereby committed offences punishable under SecJions 341, 
324, 326, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal 
Code, 1860 (IPC). 
H 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
A 
. 4. Usual investigation was carried out by the police 
~ , 
.authorities. ·Charge was framed against the accused. The 
accused pleaded not guilty to the charge anq claimed to be 
tried. 
8 
5. The prosecution in order to prove the case _against the 
accused exami"ned eight witnesses including three injured 
witnesses, PW 1 Gopal Sitaram Hegde-complainant, PW 2 
Nagesh Ganapati Bandekar, coolie of PW 1 and PW 3, Smt. 
Nagaveni, wife of PW 1 Gopal-complainant. The prosecution 
C also examined two Doctors, PW 4 Doctor Sadanand Krishna 
Kamat and PW 5 Dr. N.K. Katri. 
6. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yellapur 
held that there was discrepancy between the medical evidence 
and ocular evidence. He also held that there were contradictions 
D in the depositions of eye-witnesses and in the circumstances, 
it cannot be concluded that the prosecution was successful in 
proving the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 
Accordingly, by the judgment and order dated March 27, 2001, 
he acquitted all the accused. 
E 
7. The State of Karnataka being aggrieved by the order 
of acquittal preferred an appeal in the High Court of Karnataka 
under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
(hereinafter referre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.