& Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors  INSC 1519 (1 September 2009)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1309 OF 2002 Gopal and Ors.
...Appellant(s) Versus State of Karnataka ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
learned counsel for the parties.
appellants, along with one Naga @ Nagaraja and Anwar @ Md. Anwar (Accused No.3)
were tried and, by judgment rendered by the Trial Court, acquitted of all the
charges. Against the order of acquittal, when appeal was preferred by the State
of Karnataka, by the impugned judgement, the High Court upheld the acquittal of
accused- Naga @ Nagaraja but set aside the judgement and order passed by the
Trial Court in relation to the appellants and accused-Anwar @ Md. Anwar and
convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code, [for short, `I.P.C.'] and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life
and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each.
Nos.2-4,i.e., Hashim, V. Krishna and Basha @ Kadir Basha and accused-Anwar @
Md. Anwar were further convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 I.P.C.
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the
sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Against the order of
conviction, accused-Anwar @ Md. Anwar, it appears, did not move this Court.
This appeal has been filed by the remaining four accused persons, who are the appellants
before this Court.
perused the judgments of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court as well as the
one of conviction recorded by the High Court. We have also carefully gone
through the entire evidence. In our view, the reasons given by the Trial Court
for disbelieving the evidence of witnesses and recording the order of acquittal
cannot be faulted and the view taken by it is not only possible but a
reasonable one. It is well settled that in appeal against acquittal, the
appellate court should not interfere with the order of acquittal unless the
same is found to be perverse. As, in our opinion, the view taken by the Trial
Court was quite reasonable, the order of acquittal could not have been said to
be perverse; as such, the High Court was not justified in reversing the same.
that though accused-Anwar @ Md. Anwar did not prefer any appeal before this
Court, but as his case also stand on the same footing, he is also entitled to
the benefit as the four appellants before this court.
the appeal is allowed, conviction and sentence of the appellants and
accused-Anwar @ Md. Anwar are set aside and the order of acquittal rendered in
relation to them by the Trial Court is restored.
appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of bail bonds.
So far as
accused-Anwar @ Md. Anwar is concerned, he is directed to be released forthwith
unless required in connection with any other case.
......................J. [B.N. AGRAWAL]
......................J. [AFTAB ALAM]
September 01, 2009.