RAMESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appellants before us were implicated in FIR No. 26 of 2005 registered under Ss. 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), by Bannerghatta Police Station, Bangalore Rural District. They were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Bangalore Rural District, in Sessions Case No. 232 of 2005, along with three other accused persons, for offences under the aforesaid provisions and also Sec. 120B IPC. By judgment dtd. 3/5/2006, the Trial Court acquitted all five of them of all charges. Aggrieved by their acquittal, the State of Karnataka preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1544 of 2006 before the High Court. By the impugned judgment dtd. 29/3/2011, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed the acquittal judgment passed by the Trial Court and held all five accused guilty of offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 120B and 302 read with 149 IPC.

(2.) Aggrieved thereby, all the five accused persons joined together in filing this appeal before this Court. However, as they failed to surrender after their application for exemption from surrendering was rejected, the appeal stood dismissed in its entirety, pursuant to the order dtd. 1/3/2012. Thereafter, upon the surrender of Ramesh, Kumara and Praveen Alexander, Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 5, the appeal was restored in so far as they were concerned. The appeal was admitted on 28/3/2016 and at that time, this Court dismissed the appeal in so far as Appellant Nos.

(3.) and 4 were concerned, as they had not surrendered. Praveen Alexander, Appellant No. 5, expired thereafter and taking note of the same, vide order dtd. 1/4/2019, this Court dismissed the appeal in so far as he was concerned on the ground of abatement. In effect, only Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 remain in the picture. They were granted bail by this Court on 29/4/2019. 3. The crucial aspect to be noted first and foremost is that the High Court has reversed a judgment of acquittal. The High Court was also conscious of this, as it was duly noted in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment. The parameters for interference with an acquittal judgment being well defined, we would have to see whether the High Court was justified in doing so.