Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 569 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. Mallikarjuna Kadappa Pati

2022-04-21

H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD, RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. These two appeals are filed by the State and the father of the deceased against the judgment of acquittal passed by 12th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Gokak in S.C.No.251/2014 dated 15.11.2017. 2. Crl.A.No.100115/2018 is filed by the State under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. while Crl.A.No.100022/2018 is filed by PW-8 under Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.', for short) 3. As both these appeals are arising out of the same judgment of acquittal, they are heard together and common order is being passed. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to with their original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court. 5. Brief factual matrix leading to the case is as under: That on Bhupal Hanji has filed a complaint with Mudalagi police station that on 27.03.2013 alleging that his land is situated near Mudalagi-Sunadholi road on bank of Ghataprabha river and he is cultivating the said land. On 27.03.2013 at about 11.00 a.m., when he was watering the sugarcane crop, he noticed people gathered near river bridge and out of curiosity, he went there and noticed that a dead body was floating there in the water. The dead body was of a male person aged about 20-30 years and the hands were tied with plastic rope and hence, he suspecting the murder, lodged a complaint which was registered in Crime No.46/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short). According to the prosecution, during the course of the investigation, it is revealed that deceased was identified as Irappa Bheemappa Kudemmi and his father subsequently alleged the motive to commit the offence stating that the deceased had illicit intimacy with the wives of accused Nos.1 and 3 and as such, he suspected the accused No.3 and the accused No.3 also made extra judicial confession before him asserting that they have to got rid of his son and in the same way they are going to murder him also. Then the PW-8 has given statement in this regard before the Investigating Officer and Investigating Officer has apprehended the accused and drawn mahazar. Then the PW-8 has given statement in this regard before the Investigating Officer and Investigating Officer has apprehended the accused and drawn mahazar. He has also recorded the statement of material witnesses in this regard and found that there is material evidence as against the accused and accused having committed the murder of the deceased, threw his dead body in order to screen themselves from the legal consequences. Hence, he has submitted the charge sheet on the basis of circumstantial evidence. After the submission of the charge sheet, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and then committed the case to the Sessions Court. In the meanwhile, accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested and accused No.3 obtained anticipatory bail. The accused were enlarged on bail in due course and they have appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and they were represented by the defence counsel. The prosecution papers were furnished to them. After hearing the arguments and perusing the records, the learned Sessions Judge has famed charge under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC against the accused and the same is read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 30 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-30 and documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-49 and 8 MOs were also marked as M.O. 1 to 8. After conclusion of evidence of the prosecution, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the case of the prosecution. The case of the accused is of total denial and they did not choose to lead any oral evidence. However, Exs.D-1 and D-2 were got marked which are the portions of the statements said to have been given by PW-17 before the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 7. After having heard the arguments and perusing the oral as well as documentary evidence, learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, these two appeals were filed by the State as well as PW-8, father of the deceased. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, these two appeals were filed by the State as well as PW-8, father of the deceased. 8. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for appellants and learned counsel for respondents. Perused the records. 9. Learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor would contend that judgment of acquittal is contrary to law and facts and as well as evidence on record. He would contend that PW-8, PW-9, PW-19 and PW-24 have specifically deposed before the Trial Court regarding the motive for commission of the offence. He would also contend that the Trial Court has erroneously discarded the evidence of PW-8 and PW-9 on the ground that they are interested witnesses, which is unsustainable. He would also contend that PW-17 and PW-23 are the witnesses who have seen the deceased in the company of accused Nos.1 and 2 and PW-18 is also an independent witness who has seen the deceased lastly in the company of accused Nos.1 and 2. Further, it is asserted that after the arrest of all the accused, accused have given statement before the police admitting that they have caused the death of the deceased and thrown the dead body in the river. A mahazar was drawn and the medical evidence clearly disclose that the cause of death is due to asphyxia especially as a result of strangulation. He would contend that the motive and last seen theory are supporting the case of the prosecution coupled with extra- judicial confession made before the appellant/PW-8 by the accused No.3 and the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence and has erroneously acquitted the accused. Hence, learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor would pray for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal and prayed for convicting the accused. 10. Learned counsel for appellant in Crl.A. No.100022/2016 has also argued in the same lines of learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor and contend that the time gap of last seen theory is very small and there is no possibility of others committing the offence except accused. According to him, the Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect. He would also contend that it is a homicidal death due to strangulation and though certain contradictions were elicited, they were not placed before the Investigating Officer and no explanation was given in 313 statement by the accused as required. According to him, the Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect. He would also contend that it is a homicidal death due to strangulation and though certain contradictions were elicited, they were not placed before the Investigating Officer and no explanation was given in 313 statement by the accused as required. He would further contend that the Trail Court is not justified in ignoring the evidence of PW-8, PW-17, PW-18, PW-19 and PW-23 who are the material witnesses and on surmises and assumptions, the Trail Court has acquitted the accused. Hence, he would seek for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal and prayed for convicting the accused. 11. Per contra, leaned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would support the judgment of acquittal. He would contend that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory put forward by the prosecution is not acceptable as PW-17 and PW-18 are interested witnesses. It is also contended that the extra- judicial confession alleged to have been made before PW-8 does not inspire the confidence of the Court and the statement of all these witnesses regarding last seen theory was recorded after more than one year which creates suspicion regarding genuineness of the case of the prosecution. He would also contend that the cross- examination of PW-8 clearly discloses that he has go on changing his versions from time to time and hence, he would contend that on assessing the entire evidence and considering the missing links, the Trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused. As such, he would pray for dismissal of both the appeals by confirming the judgment of acquittal. 12. We have heard the learned counsels for appellants in both the appeals and learned counsel for respondents. Perused the Trial Court records. Now the following point would arise for our consideration: 'Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trail Court is perverse, capricious and erroneous so as to call for any interference by this Court?' 13. As per the case of the prosecution, the incident is said to have taken place on 27.03.2013 but the records further disclose that there was no progress in the investigation for nearly one year and till one year, the investigating agency regularly recorded the statements of witnesses but they could not found any material as against the accused. As per the case of the prosecution, the incident is said to have taken place on 27.03.2013 but the records further disclose that there was no progress in the investigation for nearly one year and till one year, the investigating agency regularly recorded the statements of witnesses but they could not found any material as against the accused. In the instant case, the evidence of complainant has no relevancy as simply he has set the law in motion. Though he has turned hostile, it does not have any relevancy as admittedly the death of the deceased is a homicidal death due to strangulation which is not under serious dispute. 14. PW-2 to PW-7 are the pancha witnesses and all these witnesses have turned hostile. They are spot mahazar panchas wherein the dead body was found, the inquest panchas and cloth recovery pancha pertaining to clothes found on the body of the deceased but all these witnesses have turned hostile. Even otherwise, their hostility has no much relevancy. 15. PW-8 is the father of the deceased Irappa. In his evidence, he deposed that about 2 years 11 months back, the deceased went to work at 10.00 a.m. from the house and in the evening he did not return and his phone was switched off. He further deposed that then he called CW-18, who is his sister and she stated that she has seen the deceased in Ghataprabha around 6.30 p.m. moving along with accused Nos.1 and 2 on his motorcycle and as such he had also claimed that they went to house of accused No.2 on the same night but he was not in the house and in Mrutyunjay circle, motorcycle of deceased was found and on the next day, his dead body was found in the river. He has also deposed that accused No.2 is son of accused No.1. He has also deposed that the deceased was friend of accused No.2 and he used to visit the house of accused No.2 and he learnt that he was staying with the second wife of accused No.1. He has also deposed that he lodged a complaint suspecting the involvement of accused Nos.1 and 2 in this regard. He has also deposed that four months after the murder of his son, accused No.3 stopped to visit their house and hence, he lodged a complaint against him in Mudalagi police station. He has also deposed that he lodged a complaint suspecting the involvement of accused Nos.1 and 2 in this regard. He has also deposed that four months after the murder of his son, accused No.3 stopped to visit their house and hence, he lodged a complaint against him in Mudalagi police station. He has further deposed that one year 2 months later, the accused No.3 has threatened him that as he has reported the matter to the police and they will finish him also as they had finished his son and as such, he lodged a complaint in this regard. But at the first instance, the statement of this witness discloses that he has not lodged any complaint against the accused. 16. Apart from that, though he claimed regarding extra-judicial confession by accused No.3, he did not disclose as to where the extra-judicial confession was made by accused No.3. This part is completely silent. Further, this witness was treated as partly hostile by the prosecution and in his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted that on 28.08.2013, he has given statement before the CPI, Mudalagi suspecting accused No.3 on the ground that accused No.3 was nurturing vengeance against the deceased as the deceased had illicit relationship with the wife of accused No.3. This statement discloses that initially he has not given any complaint against accused Nos.1 and 2 nor suspected them. Further, he has not lodged any complaint but he has only given a statement before the CPI, Mudalagi suspecting accused No.3 only on the ground of illicit relationship of his deceased son with the wife of accused No.3 but the evidence given by this witness is completely inconsistent and contrary. Further, he claimed that on the same night, CW-18 has intimated him that she has seen the deceased in the company of accused Nos.1 and 2 in Ghataprabha while they were moving on a motorcycle around 6.30 p.m. He also asserts that he has given statement before the police in this regard but no such statement is forthcoming in this regard. This is a new version put forth by this witness. 17. He also admitted in his cross-examination that one year after the murder of his son, he has filed an application before the Superintendent of Police making allegation against six persons. This is a new version put forth by this witness. 17. He also admitted in his cross-examination that one year after the murder of his son, he has filed an application before the Superintendent of Police making allegation against six persons. In the examination-in-chief, he claimed that 7 to 8 days after the murder of his son, he lodged a complaint with Mudalagi Police making allegations of involvement of accused Nos.1 and 2 but no such complaint is forthcoming. He further deposed that 3 to 4 months later, he has also lodged a complaint against the accused No.3 suspecting his involvement but no such complaint is forthcoming but only a statement is available in this regard. It is also evident that he had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.101016/2014 against the State in view of the inaction on the part of the investigating agency. The certified copy of the order of the writ petition is at Ex.P-49 which discloses that subsequent to submission of the charge sheet, writ petition was closed. The evidence of this witness is two folded i.e., one regarding motive and extra judicial confession. As observed above, regarding extra judicial confession, no convincing evidence is forthcoming and where it is made is also not stated by this witness. Regarding motive, his evidence is not so much convincing. However, it is required to be assessed with the evidence of other witnesses. 18. PW-9 is the circumstantial witness and he has deposed regarding deceased not returning to home in the evening on 26.03.2013 and in spite of search, they could not trace him and from his mother CW-18, he learnt that the accused Nos.1 and 2 were proceeding along with the deceased on the motorcycle of the deceased in Ghataprabha but however, he is not an eyewitness and his evidence is not much relevant. Apart from that, such statement was not given by this witness before the Investigating Officer that he has received the information on the same night about getting knowledge that deceased was in the company of accused Nos.1 and 2. This story was built up subsequently. 19. PW-11 to PW-16 are again circumstantial witnesses but they have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 20. PW-17 Ningavva is the sister of PW-8 and mother of PW-9 and she is a star witness according to the prosecution. This story was built up subsequently. 19. PW-11 to PW-16 are again circumstantial witnesses but they have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 20. PW-17 Ningavva is the sister of PW-8 and mother of PW-9 and she is a star witness according to the prosecution. In her evidence, she deposed that three yeas ago, she had been to Ghataprabha Hospital and by evening at 6.30 p.m., when she was purchasing fruits, she has seen the deceased riding the motorcycle and accused Nos.1 and 2 were pillion riders and they proceeded towards Mrutyunjaya circle. She has also stated that when the complainant has called her on the same night, she has reported this aspect and on the very next day, the police have recorded her statement. Very interestingly, she has denied the fact that she has given statement as per Exs.D- 1 and D-2 before the Investigating Officer on 29.03.2013. As per Ex.D-1, she asserts that she has seen some unknown persons traveling with deceased but before this Court she is making allegation that she has seen the accused Nos.1 and 2. 21. Exs.D-1 and D-2 which are her statements before the Investigating Officer runs contrary to evidence. Further, from Ex.D-2, it is evident that she has subsequently asserted that some two other persons have traveled with deceased. Considering this aspect, her evidence does not inspire the confidence of the Court and she appears to be a planted witness subsequently. 22. PW-18, Lakkavva is another circumstantial witness. In her evidence, she claimed that three years back she had been to Gokak for medical check up of her daughter and then she was returning to Durdundi and while standing near Arbhavi Math, at 6.45 p.m., she found that accused No.2 was riding a motorcycle while deceased and accused No.1 were traveling on the said motorcycle as pillion riders and they came from Ghataprabha and proceeded towards Sangankeri. She claimed that she has narrated this aspect one year after the incident to the complainant. In the cross-examination, she claimed that she was standing near Arbhavi Math from 6.00 p.m. to 6.45 p.m. Further, she has specifically deposed that on the same day evening at 6 O'clock, she has got information regarding murder of the deceased. She claimed that she has narrated this aspect one year after the incident to the complainant. In the cross-examination, she claimed that she was standing near Arbhavi Math from 6.00 p.m. to 6.45 p.m. Further, she has specifically deposed that on the same day evening at 6 O'clock, she has got information regarding murder of the deceased. If this version is taken into consideration, then her examination-in-chief wherein she stated that she has seen the deceased at 6.45 p.m. in the company of accused Nos.1 and 2 cannot be accepted. In the cross-examination, she has tried to improve her version stating that she has seen accused Nos.1 and 2 in the company of deceased and this fact was reported to police on the third day and 11/2 year later she has given such a statement. But her statement discloses that it was after one year and this delay is not explained and immediately no such statement was given by this witness. Hence, the evidence of PW-18 also does not inspire the confidence of the Court. 23. Apart from that, PW-17 claimed that she has seen the deceased in the company of accused No.2 at 6.30 p.m. in Ghataprabha but PW-18 stated that she has seen deceased in the company of accused Nos.1 and 2 at 6.45 p.m. in Arabhavi Math. Almost at the same time, both the witnesses cannot see the deceased and accused at the different spots and this also creates doubt regarding their statements. 24. PW-19 is the widow of the deceased and her evidence does not assist the prosecution in any way. 25. PW-20, PW-21 and PW-22 are other three circumstantial witnesses and they have also turned hostile. According to the prosecution, PW-22 Kavita is the second wife of accused No.1 and deceased had illicit relationship with this witness but she denied the said aspect. Hence, the prosecution is not able to prove the motive also. 26. PW-23 is another independent witness to the theory of last seen. He claimed that about 3 years back in Ghataprabha he has seen the deceased standing along with accused Nos.1 and 2 in Mrutyunjaya circle by the side of the road. In his cross-examination, he claimed that eight days after the death of deceased, he has reported this matter to the police and he has given statement before the police but no such statement is forthcoming. In his cross-examination, he claimed that eight days after the death of deceased, he has reported this matter to the police and he has given statement before the police but no such statement is forthcoming. Hence, his evidence regarding last seen theory appears to be doubtful. Further, he did not disclose at what time he seen the deceased along with the accused Nos.1 and 2. 27. PW-24 Dundappa is examined by the prosecution to prove the motive wherein it is stated that the deceased has confessed before him that accused No.1 was threatening him but interestingly no complaint was filed in this regard. Further, this witness is related to the deceased. 28. PW-27 is the Investigating Officer and he claimed that on 22.04.2014 he filed an application seeking permission of the Court to subject the suspected accused Nos.1 to 3 to brain mapping test. Further, he deposed that on 07.05.2014, PW-8 has given statement asserting that accused have made extra-judicial confession before him in bus stand. When he has recorded the statement, there was no need for this witness to obtain thumb mark but he has obtained the thumb mark. What was the basis for him for apprehension of accused Nos.1 and 2 is not at all forthcoming as the evidence of prosecution witnesses discloses that there was no complaint and not even suspicion against accused Nos.1 and 2 and only one statement was against accused No.3. 29. In the instant case, the prosecution is mainly relying on the evidence of PW-17, PW-18 and PW-23. PW- 17 and PW-18 are close relatives of the deceased and their evidence disclose that though they assert that they have disclosed the fact of they seeing the deceased in the company of accused Nos.1 and 2, no such statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer and no explanation is also forthcoming. Further, the statement of PW-18 was recorded after one year. 30. PW-23 though asserted regarding he also seeing accused Nos.1 and 2 in the company of deceased which did not disclose at what time, he seen them and though he asserts that he has given statement before the police 8 days later, no such statement is forthcoming and these statements were recorded after one year. There is ordinate delay in recording the statements and PW-17 and PW-18 are close relatives of the deceased. As such, they are interested witnesses. There is ordinate delay in recording the statements and PW-17 and PW-18 are close relatives of the deceased. As such, they are interested witnesses. There is no proper explanation for delay in recording statement of the witnesses. The entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution is also trying to make out a case of extra- judicial confession but it is a week type of evidence. The prosecution is required to prove the link between the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused but in the instant case, no such material evidence is forthcoming. 31. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit alias Ammu Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2003) 8 SCC 93 and argued that when the accused were last seen in the company of the deceased, they are required to explain under what circumstance they parted away from the company but there is no explanation but in the instant case, the last seen theory itself is doubtful as the statements regarding last seen were recorded after one year and the witnesses tried to make out a case that immediately they have reported the matter to the police but no such statements are forthcoming. It appears that when a writ petition is filed before this Court, hurriedly the investigation was concluded in order to close the matter without getting confirmed the factual aspects. Considering the facts and circumstances, the principles enunciated in the above said decision cannot be made applicable to the case on hand. 32. The learned counsel for appellant further places reliance on a decision in the case of Damodar Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2000) 10 SCC 328 but again the facts and circumstances are entirely different as in the said case, the victim minor girl was last seen in the company of accused and further her dead body was exhumed from the premises of the house of the accused. Hence, it is held that the circumstantial evidence is sufficient and no explanation is offered by the accused as to how the dead body was exhumed from his house and in that context, guilt was held to be proved but no such fact is forthcoming in the instant case. Hence, it is held that the circumstantial evidence is sufficient and no explanation is offered by the accused as to how the dead body was exhumed from his house and in that context, guilt was held to be proved but no such fact is forthcoming in the instant case. The last seen theory in the instant case itself is a doubtful aspect and the witnesses have given statement after one year and they appears to be planted. 33. Learned counsel for respondent/accused placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of A.P. and others reported in AIR 1990 SC 79 . Learned counsel would argue that when the case is based on circumstantial evidence, however the strong suspicion, it cannot take place of legal proof. No doubt, in the instant case, there are allegations of motive but motive regarding illicit relationship of deceased with the wives of accused Nos.1 and 3 is not conclusively established. Further, last seen theory was developed after one year which creates a doubt in the mind of the Court. Hence, merely because a suspicion is there, it cannot take place of the legal proof and the said principles reported in the above case are directly applicable to the case in hand. Learned counsel for respondent further placed reliance on a decision in the case of Harbeer Singh Vs. Sheeshpal and others Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2016 SC 4958 wherein it is observed as under: (A) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.378- Constitution of India, Art.136- Appeal against acquittal - Powers of appellate Court - Mere fact that another view could also have been taken on evidence on record is not a ground for reversing an order of acquittal - View favourable to accused to be adopted when two views are possible. In an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not interfere with the judgment of the High Court unless the same is clearly unreasonable or perverse or manifestly illegal or grossly unjust. Mere fact that another view could also have been taken on the evidence on record is not a ground for reversing an order of acquittal. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Mere fact that another view could also have been taken on the evidence on record is not a ground for reversing an order of acquittal. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. (Para 10, 11) (B) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.300- Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.378- Murder - Appeal against acquittal - allegations that accused person driving his Jeep and with an intention to kill, hit deceased and dragged him to distance as a result of which he died - Alleged act was committed in furtherance of old enmity with deceased in connivance with other accused persons - Delay in recording statements of witnesses not explained satisfactorily - Evidence of eye-witnesses is not truthful, reliable and trustworthy - Their presence at spot is highly unnatural as also their ability to individually and correctly identify each of accused from a considerable distance, especially when it was dark at spot - Prosecution unable to convincingly connect jeep of accused with incident beyond reasonable doubt - View taken by High Court in acquitting accused persons, in the facts and circumstances of the case appears to be reasonably plausible one - No interference. (Para 25, 26, 27) (C) Criminal P.C. (2) of 1974), S.161- Recording of statement - Delay in - Effect - Delay of 15-16 days from the date of incident in recording statements of witnesses to alleged conspiracy between accused persons to kill deceased - Sought to be unconvincingly explained by reference to fact that family had to sit for shock meetings for 12 to 13 days - Also delay in recording statements of witnesses as regards incident of murder not satisfactorily explained - Would cast doubt upon prosecution case. (Para 15, 16) 34. (Para 15, 16) 34. In the instant case also there is inordinate delay of more than one year in recording the statements of witnesses, especially last seen theory and that is not properly explained. Further, considering the lapses in this regard and missing links in the chain of circumstances, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused. As such, merely because this Court can take another view, it cannot be a ground for reversing the judgment of acquittal and it is also observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that when two views are possible, view favourable to the accused to be adopted. In the instant case, chain of circumstances are incomplete and motive is not proved. The evidence of PW-17, PW-18 and PW-23 does not inspire the confidence of the Court and there is inordinate delay in recording the statements of all these witnesses. Further, PW-17 and PW-18 are close relatives of the deceased and they appear to be planted. Further, PW-17 has denied giving statement as per Exs.D-1 and D2. Under these circumstances, their evidence is not sufficient to complete the chain of links. Looking to these facts and circumstances, it is evident that prosecution has miserable failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned Sessions Judge has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in this regard and has arrived at a just conclusion. Learned Sessions Judge has analyzed the oral and documentary evidence on delay highlighting the lapses in the evidence of prosecution and acceptability of the evidence of the prosecution. Under these circumstances, the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or illegality so as to warrant any interference by this Court. Under such circumstances, question of interfering with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is unwarranted. Under these circumstances, on re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, we answer the point under consideration in the negative. As a result, the appeals being devoid of any merits need to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following : ORDER Both the appeals in Crl.A.No.100115/2018 and Crl.A.No.100022/2018 are dismissed by confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 15.11.2017, passed by the learned 12th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Gokak, in S.C.No.251/2014.