- 1 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 07

TH

DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.241 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

1. H. K. HALESH

S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

R/O HULLUGARADIKERI,

PRESENTLY R/AT ARASIKERE ROAD,

VALMIKINAGAR, HARAPANAHALLI,

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT

PIN -570 001.

2. M.V. ANJINAPPA

S/O TUMMANAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

PRESENTLY R/AT ARASIKERE ROAD,

VALMIKINAGAR,

HARAPANAHALLI TOWN,

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT–577 001.

3. T. VENKATESH

S/O HUCHCHENGAMMA,

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

R/O VALMIKINAGARA,

PRESENTLY R/AT ARASIKERE ROAD,

HARAPANAHALLI TOWN,

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT–577 001.

4. CHIKKERI BASAPPA

S/O URAPPA,

AGED 50 YEARS,

R/O VALMIKINAGARA,

PRESENTLY R/AT ARASIKERE ROAD,

HARAPANAHALLI TOWN,

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT–577 001.

- 2 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

5. D. ANJINAPPA

S/O DURUGADA HANUMAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

R/O GUDIKATTIKERI,

HARAPANAHALLI TOWN,

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT

PIN - 577001

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. C. H. JADHAV, SR. COUNSEL FOR

SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADV.)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY HARAPANAHALLI POLICE STATION

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,

REPRESENTED BY

THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT BUILDING,

BANGALORE – 560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO

SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND

SENTENCE DATED 18.03.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIO NS

JUDGE, AT DAVANAGERE IN S.C.NO.14/2011 - CONVICTING

THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 147,32 3,

R/W 149,353 R/W 149 OF IPC AND ACCUSED NO.3 FOR THE

OFFENCE P/U/S 114 OF IPC AND ETC.,

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 27.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR

"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

- 3 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CAV JUDGMENT

The appellants have preferred this appeal against t he

judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 18

th

March, 2014 passed in SC No.14 of 2011 by the learn ed

Principal Sessions Judge, Davanagere (for short "th e trial

Court").

2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are

referred to as per their status before the special court.

3.

The brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the

Sub-Inspector of Police (Law and Order) Harapanahal li Police

Station laid a charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 to 5 for

the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 504, 323, 114,

506, 307 and 353 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code.

4.

It is alleged by the prosecution that on 17.02.2010

at about 12.55 p.m. in the noon, CW1- B.K. Srinivas Murthy

was discharging his duty as Municipal Commissioner at Town

Municipal Council, Harapanahalli and at that time, the accused

formed into an unlawful assembly with an intention to commit

offence and entered the chambers of CW1 in the Muni cipal

Council Office and abused him with abusive words wi th

- 4 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

intention to provoke him to commit offence and furt her, they

threatened him stating that they would kill him and assaulted

him with hands and pressed his neck and tried to co mmit the

murder. Accused persons prevented CW1 from dischar ging his

official duties by assaulting him and threatening him. After the

incident, CW1 went to Harapanahalli police station and lodged

report regarding the incident. On the basis of said report,

CW15, who was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Harapanh ahalli

Police Station registered the case against the accu sed and

visited the place of incident and interrogated the accused.

After investigation, Investigating Officer submitted the charge-

sheet against the accused for the alleged commission of alleged

offences. After filing charge sheet, a case was registered in CC

No.697 of 2010 and the case was committed to the Co urt of

Session and the same was registered in SC No.14 of 2011. The

accused appeared before the Sessions Court and enla rged on

bail.

5.

Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court has framed

the charges for the aforesaid commission of aforesaid offences.

The same was read over and explained to the accused . Having

understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed

to be tried.

- 5 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

6. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution

has examined 14 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 14 and 19 do cuments

were marked as Exhibits P1 to P19 and iron chair is marked as

MO1. On closure of prosecution side evidence, Statement under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused have totally,

denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Howev er, they

have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.

7.

Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial

Court has acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the offences under

Sections 307, 504, 506 of IPC and accused Nos.1 to 5 are

convicted for the offence under Section 147, 323 re ad with

Section 149 Indian Penal Code and accused No. 3 is convicted

for the offence under Section 114 of Indian Penal Code and the

trial Court has passed the sentence against accused Nos. 1 to 5

to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for each offences

under Section 147 and 323 of Indian Penal Code read with

Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 353 re ad with

Section 149 of IPC and also to pay a fine of ₹500/- each for

these offences.

8.

Accused No. 3 is sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Sec tion 114

of Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of ₹ 500/- and in

- 6 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

default of payment, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for

three months.

9.

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of

conviction and order on sentence, the appellant Nos . 1 to 5

have preferred this appeal.

10.

The learned Senior Counsel Sri. C.H.Jadhav

appearing on behalf of Smt. Rashmi Jadhav for the

appellants/accused would submit that the impugned j udgment

and order passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, evidence

and material on record. The trial Court has not pro perly

appreciated the evidence on record, which resulted in

miscarriage of justice. There is no independent corroboration

to the interested version of the complainant who is examined

as PW10, who has a motive to falsely implicate the accused in

lieu of the earlier case filed against him by accused No.2. The

trial Court has failed to appreciate that earlier on the complaint

of accused No.2, a case was registered against PW10 for

committing offence under Sections 504, 355, 506, 30 7 of

Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 (1)(x) of SC/ ST (POA)

Act, 1989 and therefore, he was nurturing ill-will against the

accused since the other accused are the witnesses in the said

case and supported the complainant therein.

- 7 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

11. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused of

the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 of Indian

Penal Code, holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the

allegations leveled against them, ought to have see n that

previous complaint was lodged making false allegation against

the accused.

12.

The PWs.1 to 8 are the officials of Harapanahalli

Municipality who were said to be present in the off ice when

earlier incident took place. All these material witnesses have

not supported the case of prosecution.

13.

The evidence of P.W.9-Doctor clearly discloses that

the names of the accused were not stated by PW10 wh ile giving

the history, though the accused are familiar to him . On the

other hand, P.W.10 has stated that he was assaulted by some

persons which creates doubt about the involvement o f the

appellants. The panch witnesses-PWs11 and 12 to the

mahazar-Ex.P11, have not supported the case of the

prosecution.

14.

All the appellants are sitting members of Town

Municipal Council and were Government Servants. Eve n

assuming that the accused have committed the allege d

- 8 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

offences, the same would be fall within the colour of exercise of

power and consequently, in the absence of sanction, the

prosecution instituted by PW10 was unsustainable in the law.

15.

Though there is no cogent, convincing, trustworthy

evidence, trial Court has failed to consider the sa me and

convicted the accused, which is not sustainable under law and

on all these grounds, sought to allow the appeal.

16.

The learned High Court Government Pleader

Sri. B. Lakshman, for respondent-State would submit that the

trial Court has properly appreciated the material on record and

passed the impugned judgment which is in accordance with law

and facts and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

17. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on

perusal of the materials placed before this Court, the following

points would arise for my consideration:

1. Whether the trial Court has justified in convicting

the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences

punishable under Section 147, 323, 353 read

with 149 Indian Penal Code and convicting

accused No.3 for the offence under Section 114

of Indian Penal Code?

2. What order?

- 9 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

18. I have examined the materials placed before this

court. Harapanahalli Police have submitted the char ge-sheet

against the accused for the offences under Section 143, 147,

504, 323, 114, 506, 307 and 353 read with 149 of Indian Penal

Code.

19.

The trial Court has acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 5

for the offences punishable under Section 307, 504 and 506 of

Indian Penal Code, however, has convicted accused N os.1 to 5

for the offence punishable under Section 147, 323, 353 read

with 149 of Indian Penal Code; and accused No.3 is convicted

for the offence under Section 114 of Indian Penal Code.

20.

Before appreciation of evidence on record. It is

relevant to mention here as to the essential ingred ients to

prove the offence under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code. The

same reads as under:

"(b) Evidence by Prosecution: For a successful

prosecution of a riot case the prosecution must prove:-

i) that there were five or more persons;

ii) that they had a common purpose;

iii) that they had begun to execute such purpose;

iv) that they intended to help one another by force , if

necessary;

- 10 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

v) that they had shown such degree of violence whic h

would alarm at least one person of reasonable

courage".

21. To prove the offence under Section 323 read with

149 Indian Penal Code, the essential ingredients are as under:

"(a) the victim suffered from bodily pain, disease or

infirmity;

(b) that the accused caused the aforesaid bodily pa in

etc.;

(c) that the accused did so intentionally or with

knowledge that in the process hurt would be

caused."

22. To prove the offence under Section 353 Indian

Penal Code, the essential ingredients are as under:

"To bring home an offence under Section 353, I.P.C

the prosecution is to prove the points (1) or (2) as in

Section 352, I.P.C. The prosecution is to prove further

(3) the victim of assault or user of force was a

public servant within the meaning of Section 21, I.P.C. (4)

the assault or user of force was made on such polic e

servant while he was executing his duty as a public

servant;

or

(4) the assault or user of force was made with

an intention to prevent or deter the public servant

concerned from discharging his duty qua public servant;

- 11 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

or

(5) the assault or user of force was made in

consequence of anything done or attempted to be don e

by the concerned public servant in discharge of his duty

qua public servant".

23. This case arise out of the complaint filed by Sri B.K.

Srinivasmurthy, Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru, who was

examined as PW10 and the complaint marked as per Ex hibit

P10. In Exhibit P10, it is stated as under:

"I hereby B.K. Srinivasa Murthy, presently

Municipal Commissioner, Grade-II, Town Municipal

Council, Harapanahalli was between 12.55 p.m. to 1. 15

p.m. today at my chamber attacked by the Counsellor

Halesh, Anjinappa, Venkatesh, Chikkeri Basappa and

Anjinappa husband of Counsellor Shantamma on the is sue

of road building in the town, 18% scandal/ruckus created

by these counsellors and earlier report by me to the DC

on the above of the chief officer at the meeting.

Councilor Halesh held my hand and councillor

Anjinappa held my neck tightly while Chikkeri Basap pa

lifted the chair (office) to hit, the other counsel lor

Venkatesh was inspiring the above to attempt murder in

the office and injure the official on duty seriously. The

Anjinappa husband of Councilor Shanthamma had held

the legs of me tightly.

As soon as they entered the office they shouted l ike

"(b) Evib ನೆ, eyP robsutc: Fca:flpehm INN -w;hm gcx,e

- 12 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

ಪ#$ಾತದ ಬೆ' gvIC1eb2 ಒದ-ಸು/0ೕ1ಾ. ಪ2ರಸ3ೆಯ tvjVM;hm ಆಗು/0ರುವ

ogcM -Ch:io/FcD Nh:B'caULnc, ಎ.>. ;ೊಂ=ೆ gc:?FcaU@b Aೆರವ2

BಾC=Dೕ1ಾ. EಾವF EµÀÄÖ ªÀµÀð $ªGåÉvª?.å EvHcaDU@b &<==DÉV. ÈJ¸

$ªGåÉvª?.åvå Aೊಂದ;ೆ EvwM:Gv ಎಂದು BೇGೆI9ಂಡು ನು-' ಈ K:he PÀÈvÀå

J¸ÀVzÁÝgÉ.

Since we had anticipated this earlier we had

requested for the police protection.

This act of them was done in the absence of the

police protection on this day, while regarding the absence

of police protection, I had called up the PSI requesting for

the police protection.

During the happening, when with due all my

strength the police intervened and tried to stop th em

people from attempt to murder. During the police

presence, Anjinappa Counsellor had in front of the police

over again lifted the chair to attack with Halesh, Chikkeri

Basappa (not clear) him to throw the chair on me. PSI Mr.

Sajjan, PC's were strongly (not clear) of the same.

The staff Mr. Nagraj, Mr. Uday Singh, Mr.

Subbanna, Mr. Basavaraj, Mr. Lingaraju, Mr. Shivana nd,

Mr. Chidanand, Marigowda and other staff.

To protect myself from these attackers I had to

push them in self defence to protect my life from t he

attempt to murder.

I hereby lodge an complaint against these

counsellors on charge of attempt to murder, attack an

officer on official duty, damages to public propert y

- 13 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

(Municipal property) and arrest these people for du e

proceedings, for if they left free may further endanger the

life of me and staff.

Hence this F.I.R. and complaint lodged.

"

24. The complainant-PW10 B.K. Srinivasmurthy has

deposed as to the contents of Exhibit P10.

25.

According to the case of the prosecution,

PW1-U.Nagaraja, PW2-M.Gurunatha, PW3-B.G.Shivananda ,

PW4-H.Subbanna, PW5-I.Basavaraja, PW6-Shaik Mehaboo b,

PW7-H.D.Lingaraja, PW8-Smt.Parimala Karamadi are th e eye-

witnesses to this incident. All these witnesses hav e not

supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecut ion has

treated all these witnesses as hostile witnesses, w ith the

permission of the Court and cross-examined. In thei r cross-

examination, all these witnesses were categorically denied the

statement said to have been recorded by the Investi gating

Officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which

are marked as Exhibits P1 to P8. Accordingly, prosecution has

failed to elicit any favourable answers from these material eye-

witnesses.

26.

PW9-Dr. K.M.N. Khan, who has treated the injured-

PW10 has deposed that on 17.02.2010 one

- 14 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

B.K.Srinivas Murthy was brought to their hospital at 04.15 p.m

with the history of assault. He enquired said

B.K.Srinivasamurthy, he stated before him that he w as

assaulted by some person on that day at 01.00 p.m. On

examination of the said person, he noticed the foll owing

injuries on his body:

1. Abrasion on the root of the left index finger

and it was reddish in colour.

2. Pain and tenderness over neck.

3. Pain and tenderness over left shoulder joint.

4. Pain and tenderness over both ankle joints.

27.

Further he has deposed that he treated the injured,

in his opinion all the injuries found on the body o f

B.K.Srinivas Murthy were simple in nature. They wer e caused

about 3 to 3½ hours, prior to examining him and he has issued

the wound certificate as per Exhibit P9.

28.

PW11-K.Rangaswamy, Auto driver and PW12-Althaf

said to be the attestor to the spot mahazar Exhibit P11, have

not supported to the case of the prosecution.

29.

PW13-B.Prakash, Head constable has deposed in his

evidence that he has written the spot mahazar as pe r Exhibit

P11.

- 15 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

30. PW14-Mahanthesh E. Sajjan, Police Inspector has

deposed as to the investigation conducted by him.

31.

The trial Court has convicted the accused only on

the sole interested testimony of PW10. Now the que stion

would be, "Whether the trial Court was justified in convicting

the accused without cogent or corroborative evidence? In this

regard, as already discussed above, all the material witnesses-

PW1 to PW8 have not supported the case of the prose cution.

Even in their cross-examination the prosecution has failed to

elicit any favourable answers from them to substant iate the

case of the prosecution.

32.

PW10 who was examined after the evidence of all

the witnesses, has not whispered anything against P W1 to

PW8, who have not supported the case of the prosecution. The

reasons for not supporting PW1 to PW8 are not expla ined by

the prosecution through PW10 or from the mouth of P W1 to

PW8. During the course of cross-examination of PW10 , it is

elicited that accused No.2 had given a complaint to police on

the date of incident alleging that PW10 had abused him by

referring his caste. He also admitted that the case was

registered against PW10 in this regard.

- 16 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

33. The appellant counsel has produced the memo

along with copy of the FIR No.24/2010, which reveal s that

M.V.Anjinappa, who is accused No. 2 in this case ha s filed a

complaint against the present complainant/B.K.Srini vas

Murthy-PW10. On the basis of this complaint, case w as

registered by the Harapanahalli Police in Crime No. 24/2010 for

the offence under Section 504, 355, 506, 307 of Ind ian Penal

Code read with Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 which

reveals that on the date of incident i.e., 17.02.2010 at 12.30

p.m the complainant and his friends i.e., other appellants and

others being members of Municipality have enquired as to

calling general body meeting. Then PW10 has abused them in

filthy language by referring their caste threatened to their life

and also attempt to commit murder by stabbing them with

knife on the abdomen.

34.

PW10 has suppressed this alleged incident in the

complaint. Even in his examination-in-chief, he has not

whispered as to the registration of the case agains t him in

Crime No.24/2010. Only during the course of cross-

examination he has admitted as to the complaint fil ed by

accused No.2-M.V. Anjinappa against him for the afo resaid

alleged commission of offences. Apart from this, admittedly he

- 17 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

has stated in Exhibit P10, the alleged clash took place when

these accused have questioned, issue of widening of road in the

Town, 18% scandal by these Councilors and earlier reported to

the Deputy Commissioner on above Chief Officer in a meeting.

But the Investigating Officer has not collected any materials in

this regard. Even the Investigating Officer has not whispered

anything as to the non-production of these material documents

regarding widening of road and 18% of scandal as shown in the

complaint. Even during the course of trial also, the prosecution

has not taken any steps to produce the relevant doc uments

before the Court to substantiate the case of the prosecution.

Since there is a case and counter case between the parties, it is

quite natural that PW10 being an interested witness has

deposed against the accused, in such circumstances, the

evidence of PW10-interested witness, requires corro boration.

Unfortunately, PW1 to PW8, who are working in the o ffice of

PW10, have not supported the case of the prosecutio n.

Additionally, the Investigating Officer has not collected any

materials as to the reason for this alleged clash. Additionally,

the evidence of PW9-Doctor clearly disclose that, the names of

the accused persons were not stated by PW10, while giving the

history, though the accused are familiar to PW10.

- 18 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

35. On the other hand, PW10 has stated before the

doctor that, he was assaulted by some persons, whic h creates

doubt about the involvement of the appellants in th e alleged

incident. During the course of examination-in-chief, PW1 has

stated that after seeing the police, accused No.4 put down the

chair which he was holding. Further, he has admitted that the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Harapanahalli Police Station came to

his chamber along with other constables while the incident was

going on. Afterwards, it appears police have taken the accused

to the station. Immediately, he also went to the Harapanahalli

Police Station and gave written complaint regarding the

incident. This fact is not disclosed in the complaint-Exhibit P10.

If really the alleged incident took place as alleged by the

prosecution, the concerned Sub-Inspector of Police, who was

present on spot at the time of alleged incident, wo uld have

registered the case suo-motu, as the alleged offenc es are

cognizable in nature.

36.

The Investigating Officer, PW14-

Mahanthesh.E.Sajjan, who was working as a Sub-Inspe ctor of

Police by that time, has not whispered in his evidence that he

had visited the spot at the time of clash. PW14-Investigating

Officer has suppressed the material facts. PW10 als o

- 19 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

suppressed the fact, while filing complaint that th e Sub-

Inspector of Police was present at the time of incident.

37.

With regard to the mahazar is concerned. It is the

case of the prosecution that accused No.4 has tried to assault

PW10 with chair. But, same is not disclosed in Exhibit P10. In

the complaint and also the evidence, have deposed that police

were present. PW10 has not deposed the same in his evidence.

He has deposed that the complainant came to the police station

and on receiving the complaint he has registered th e case.

Accordingly, the Investigating Officer has suppressed the fact.

38.

The chair is marked as MO.1. In the mahazar, the

chair is seized by the police under Mahazar-Exhibit P11. This

mahazar was conducted by the police on 17.02.2010. PW14-

Investigating Officer has deposed in his evidence that at the

time of conducting mahazar, MO.1 was seized. Howeve r,

Investigating Officer has not deposed on which date he has

inserted the same in property register. The Investigating Officer

has produced the property Form at PF No.9 of2010. B ut this PF

was not submitted to the Court on the same day or even on the

next day. The PF was submitted to the Court only on 11

th

March, 2010. The delay in submitting PF before the Court has

not been explained by the prosecution. After seizure of this MO.

- 20 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

1 from 17.02.2010 till 11.03.2010, the Investigating Officer has

retained the same without the order of the Court as required

under Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Th erefore,

the seizure of this chair and the mahazar, the contents of the

mahazar which is not supported by the panch witness es will

create doubt as to the seizure of chair as well as the contents

of the mahazar.

39.

Viewed from any angle, I do not find any cogent,

consistent, corroborative, trustworthy evidence placed before

the Court. Though there is no trustworthy evidence before the

Court, the trial Court has convicted the accused only on the

basis of sole interested testimony of PW10, which i s not

sustainable under law. Hence, the trial Court is not justified in

convicting the accused for the commission of offenc e under

Section 147, 323, 353 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code.

40.

The prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid

essential evidence to prove the guilt of the accused for the

aforesaid offences. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.

Regarding Point No.2:

41.

For the aforestated reasons and discussion, I

proceed to pass the following:

- 21 -

CRL.A No.241 of 2014

ORDER

i) Appeal is allowed.

ii) The judgment of conviction and order on

sentence passed by the Principal Sessions

Judge, Davanagere in SC No.14 of 2011 dated

18

th

March, 2014, is set aside.

iii) Appellant/accused No.1 to 5 are acquitted for

the offence under Section 147, 323, 353, 114

read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

iv) The fine amount, if any, deposited by the

accused shall be returned to them in accordance

with law.

v) Registry is directed to send the copy of the

order along with TCR to the concerned Court.

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA)

JUDGE

lnn/JS