MUNISHAMAPPA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 386 · Decided: 24-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
386
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 2 S.C.R.
 MUNISHAMAPPA & ORS.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 96-97 of 2011)
JANUARY 24, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Criminal Law – Appeal against acquittal – Long-standing
dispute between families of two brothers, accused no.5 (since
deceased) and CW-29 in regard to ancestral property – Litigation
ensued – Officials from the Survey Department came to conduct
survey of the property – Altercation between the two families– Survey
officials left the scene – Later, the accused persons returned to the
scene, armed with lethal weapons and assaulted the family of
complainants – ‘KR’ and ‘KE’, sons of CW-29 died – Trial court
acquitted eleven accused persons tried for offences inter alia
u/ss.143, 148, 323, 324 and 302 r/w s.149, IPC – High Court allowed
the appeal in part and convicted ten accused persons-appellants
inter alia u/s.304 Part I r/w s.149, IPC – On appeal, held: In case of
appeal against acquittal, such as the present one, the High Court
should not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because two
views are possible – Only when the appreciation of evidence by the
Trial Court is capricious or its conclusions are without evidence
that the High Court may reverse order of acquittal – PW-1 (daughter
of ‘KR’) narrated the manner in which the accused assaulted the
family members of the prosecution witnesses, which was
corroborated by other eye-witnesses – Trial court acquitted the
accused persons primarily on the ground that the injuries on the
accused persons (except accused no.2) was not satisfactorily
explained – Pellet injuries suffered by accused no.3 were traceable
to the bomb blasts caused by bomb carried by accused no.2 which
exploded in the course of the incident – Injuries suffered by accused
nos.4 and 5 were simple – None of the persons in the family of the
complainant were armed – It was the accused’s side which was armed
with weapons and explosives – Judgment of the High Court
convicting accused nos.1-4, 6-8 and 11 u/s.304 Part I affirmed –
Sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment – No
 [2019] 2 S.C.R. 386
386
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
387
consistent deposition with respect to accused nos.10 and 12, they
are given benefit of doubt and acquitted– Penal Code,1860– ss.143,
148, 323, 302, 324, 304 Part I r/w s.149 – Explosive Substances
Act, 1908– ss.3, 4 and 5.
Long-standing dispute between the families of two brothers,
accused no.5 and CW-29 with regard to their ancestral property.
Litigation ensued. On the date of the incident, at about 8:30 a.m.,
officials from the Survey Department came to conduct survey of
the property. After the house of CW-29 was surveyed, they
proceeded to the house of accused no. 5, who opposed the survey.
Altercation took place between ‘KR’, one of the son of CW-29
and accused no. 5. Survey officials left the scene. Later on, the
accused returned to the scene, armed with lethal weapons. Case
of the prosecution that accused no.1 assaulted ‘KR’ with dagger.
His brother ‘KE’, who was standing near him, was stabbed by
accused no. 3. Both, ‘KR’ and KE’ died. Trial court acquitted
eleven accused persons tried for offences inter alia u/ss.143, 148,
323, 324 and 302 r/w. s.149, IPC. High Court allowed the appeal
in part and convicted ten of the accused-appellants u/s.304 Part I
read with Section 149, IPC. Hence, the present appeals.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1  In case of an appeal against acquittal, as the
present case, 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 should not interfere with an
order of acquittal merely because two views are possible. 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. The High Court, however,
must be satisfied that the incident cannot be explained except on
the basis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with their
innocence. [Para 14] [399-C-E]
1.2  PW 1 narrated the course of the incident and the manner
in which the other accused had assaulted the members of the
MUNISHAMAPPA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B

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