'No Material Evidence': Karnataka High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Eight Men Accused Of Rioting And Assaulting Worshippers Inside Mosque
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T upheld a trial court's acquittal of eight men who were accused of rioting and attempting to murder worshippers inside a mosque during Friday prayers, finding no material evidence establishing conspiracy or overt acts against them. Separately, the Court partially allowed the appeal of the convicted accused, reducing his conviction from attempt to murder to grievous hurt and cutting his sentence from ten years to one year, while directing him to pay a fine of Rs. 7 lakh to be distributed among the two injured victims and the State.
The matter concerned two criminal appeals arising from a violent incident that occurred on 18 October 2013 inside a mosque at Melangadi of Ullal Village, where a group allegedly entered the premises during Jumma Namaz and assaulted individuals present there. According to the prosecution, several accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and entered the mosque armed with weapons such as a knife and stones. During the incident, two persons sustained injuries and were shifted to hospitals for treatment. One injured person was admitted for three days, while the other remained hospitalized for twenty-eight days after suffering an incised stab wound and rib fracture.
Based on the complaint recorded by the police inspector at the hospital, a criminal case was registered and investigation was conducted. The prosecution examined several witnesses, including the injured persons and other eyewitnesses, and produced documentary evidence including wound certificates and case records. The trial court evaluated the oral and documentary evidence and convicted one accused for offences punishable under Sections 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. However, the trial court acquitted the remaining accused due to lack of evidence connecting them to the alleged conspiracy or specific overt acts.
Aggrieved by the acquittal of the other accused, the State filed an appeal challenging the trial court’s judgment. The convicted accused also filed a separate appeal seeking to set aside his conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
The Court examined the testimony of the injured witnesses and the other eyewitnesses along with the documentary material placed on record. It noted that the prosecution relied primarily on the statements of the injured witnesses and other persons who claimed to have witnessed the incident. The Court observed, “Having considered the material on record, there is minor discrepancy and no major discrepancy.”
While assessing the medical evidence, the Court recorded, “The treatments are given by the very same Doctor at 12.40 p.m., but at two different Hospitals at a distance of 7.5 kms. and 2.5 kms. from the place of incident.” It further observed, “PW2 was taken to Unity Hospital, where he was treated for twenty-eight days for having sustained incised stab wound measuring 8cms x 3cms obliquely placed over the left lower chest at 10th inter costal space.”
The Court also referred to the injuries sustained by the other injured witness and stated, “PW1 was in the Hospital for three days and he had sustained incised penetrating injury (stab wound) measuring 10cm x 2cm obliquely placed over the left side of the chest and shoulder junction.”
In evaluating the allegation that multiple accused had assaulted the victims with stones, the Court observed, “Other witnesses have also spoken that others have also assaulted with stones, however, there are no stone injuries either on PWs.1 and 2.” It further recorded, “It is clear that stones were found outside the Masjid and not inside the Masjid.”
With regard to the allegation of conspiracy, the Court examined the evidence and stated, “There is no direct evidence with regard to conspiracy and conspiracy would be proved only by placing on record the circumstantial evidence.” The Court then observed, “No material is placed before the Court either oral evidence, or documentary evidence.”
While assessing the offence attributed to the convicted accused, the Court observed, “Though PWs.1 and 2 have deposed regarding intention to take away their life, but they have sustained only one injury.” It further recorded, “If accused No.1 really had intended to commit the murder, he would have inflicted more number of injuries.”
Considering the nature of the incident and surrounding circumstances, the Court observed, “Taking into note of the rival conflict between the same community as well as incident had taken place in the year 2013, it would not be apt for the Court to take note of mens rea for invoking Section 307 of IPC.”
The Court directed, “Criminal Appeal No.1105 of 2017 filed by the State is dismissed. The judgment of acquittal dated 06.03.2017 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in Sessions Case No.33 of 2014 against accused Nos.2 to 9 are confirmed.”
“Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2017 filed by accused No.1 is allowed-in-part.” It further directed, “The impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence is modified. The appellant/accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.7.00 lakh (Rupees seven lakh only).”
“Accused No.1 is directed to deposit the fine amount of Rs.7.00 lakh and to surrender before the trial Court, on or before 27.04.2026, to serve remaining sentence.” It also recorded, “Accused No.1 is given set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the period of sentence, he has already undergone.”
“Out of the fine amount of Rs.7.00 lakh, Rs.6.50 lakh is ordered to be released in favour of PW2-Sri Samshuddin, Rs.25,000/- is ordered to be released in favour of PW1-Sri Sawad Abdulla, and Rs.25,000/- to be vested with the State.”
“It is made clear that, accused No.1 shall not be granted further time for deposit of fine amount of Rs.7.00 lakh, if it is not paid on or before 27.04.2026. Registry is directed to send the trial Court records along with copy of this judgment, forthwith. In view of disposal of main appeals, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Smt. Rashmi Patel, High Court Government Pleader
For the Respondents: Sri Muzaffer Ahmed, Advocate; Sri Shakeer Abbas M., Advocate (for Sri Shahul Hameed and Smt. Irfana Nazeer)
Case Title: Imthiyaz v. State of Karnataka & Connected Appeal
Neutral Citation: NC: 2026: KHC:12057-DB
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.1105 of 2017 c/w Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2017
Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T
