CRL.A NO.100594/2024

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 2

nd

DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100594 OF 2024

BETWEEN

STATE OF KARNATAKA

THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

RURAL POLICE STATION BALLARI,

THROUGH THE ADDL.

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. KARI BASAPPA S/O THIMMAREDDY

AGE 25 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

R/O. SANJEEVARAYANA KOTE,

BALLARI-583219.

2. ANGADI MALLAIAH S/O BASANNA

AGE 63 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

R/O. SANJEEVARAYANA KOTE,

BALLARI-583219.

CRL.A NO.100594/2024

- 2 -

3. VEERESH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA

AGE 40 YEARS, LABOUR,

R/O. SANJEEVARAYANA KOTE,

BALLARI-583219.

4. SANNA HONNURA SWAMY S/O THIMMAREDDY

AGE 25 YEARS, LABOUR,

R/O. SANJEEVARAYANA KOTE,

BALLARI-583219.

5. DODDA HONNURA SWAMY S/O THIMMAREDDY

AGE 29 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

R/O. SANJEEVARAYANA KOTE,

BALLARI-583219.

6. SRIDHARA S/O ANGADI MALLAIAH

AGE 35 YEARS, AUTORICKSHAW DRIVER,

R/O. SANJEEVARAYANA KOTE,

BALLARI-583219.

7. BASAVARAJA S/O ANGADI MALLAYYA

AGE 26 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

R/O. SANJEEVARAYANA KOTE,

BALLARI-583219.

8. KOLAGAL SHIVARAM S/O KARADAPPA

AGE 37 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

R/O. SANJEEVARAYANA KOTE,

BALLARI-583219.

9. NAGARAJA S/O VEERESH,

AGE 19 YEARS,

R/O. SANJEEVARAYANA KOTE,

BALLARI-583219.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. AMAREGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R9)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 419(1)(b) AND (3 ) OF

BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA (UNDER SECTION

CRL.A NO.100594/2024

- 3 -

378 (1) AND (3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE),

PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST JUDGMENT A ND

ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 07.06.2023 PASSED BY THE I I

ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI IN

S.C.NO.04/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147,

148, 323, 324, 307, 427 AND 504 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SET

ASIDE THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 07.06.2023 PASSE D

BY II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BALLARI IN

S.C.NO. 04/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143 ,

147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 427 AND 504 R/W 149 OF IPC AND

CONSEQUENTLY CONVICT THE ACCUSED PERSONS FOR THE

OFFENCE WHICH THEY WERE CHARGED IN INTEREST TO MEET

THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 20.07.2026 AND COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

AND

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE

CRL.A NO.100594/2024

- 4 -

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)

1. This appeal is filed under Section 378(1) and (3)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafte r

referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.') challenging the judgment dated

07.06.2023 passed by the II Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Ballari (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial

Court’), in S.C. No.04/2018.

2. For the sake of convenience, the ranking of the

parties is referred to as before the trial Court.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as

follows:

That on 08.05.2016 at about 7.00 p.m. the

complainant, by name Kuber S/o K. Shivaram, (PW1) h is

younger brothers Lokesh, Chandrashekhar and their f ather

went to Sanjeevarayanakote to see the grand father who

was suffering from ill health. When they were stand ing

infront of the house of their grand father, accused No.1 to 9

being the members of unlawful assembly armed with c lubs

CRL.A NO.100594/2024

- 5 -

and stones came there and started abusing them as h is

grand father constructed compound to restrain their

movements. The Accused went to assault the grand fa ther

of the complainant, immediately they made attempt t o

pacify the quarrel, but the accused started to abuse them in

filthy language, assaulted with club and hands and stone.

They threw the stones and clubs to the door and roof which

was covered with sheets, and caused damage worth of

Rs.5000/- and also made an attempt to commit the mu rder

of the complainant. The complainant and other injured took

treatment in VIMS hospital, Bellary. Thereafter the

complainant lodged the complaint against the accuse d as

per Ex.P.1 which is registered in Crime No.207/2016 initially

for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 , 148,

324, 504 and 427 R/w 149 IPC. Thereafter, based on the

requisition made by the PSI as per Ex.P.15 case was also

registered against the accused for the offence punishable

U/s 307 of IPC along with other offences previously

registered.

CRL.A NO.100594/2024

- 6 -

4. After registering the complaint and completion o f

the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the

JMFC. After compliance of the proceedings under sec tion

207 of Cr.P.C. the learned JMFC has committed the c ase to

the Sessions Court, which is registered as SC No.4/ 2018.

Thereafter, the court heard the prosecution and def ence,

and framed the charges against the accused for the said

offences. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. Prosecution in order to bring out or prove the

guilt of the accused, examined in all 14 witnesses as PW1 to

PW14 and got marked the documents Ex.P1 to P15 and

material objects MO1 and MO2.

6. After completion of the prosecution evidence,

statement of the accused as contemplated under Sect ion

313 of Cr.P.C., has been recorded, the accused have denied

the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses and they have denied their

involvement in the alleged offence. However, they d id not

choose to lead any defence evidence.

CRL.A NO.100594/2024

- 7 -

7. Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides ,

proceeded to pass the impugned judgment dated:

07.06.2023, whereby, the accused no. 1 to 9 are acq uitted

of all the offences charged against them punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 427 and 504 R/w

Section 149 of IPC.

8. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of

acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal on the

following grounds:-

a) The judgment and order of acquittal passed by

the Trial Court is contrary to law, facts and evidence on

record besides being arbitrary.

b) The Trial Court neither based on oral nor on

documentary evidence placed on record, proceeded to pass

the impugned judgment and thereby committed grave

error.

c) The Trial Court has committed grave error of law

without observing that CWs.1, 4 to 7, 9 and 10 are

CRL.A NO.100594/2024

- 8 -

examined as PW1 to 7 as injured witnesses and has n ot

considered. The statement of the complainant and ot her

witnesses though corroborative of material on record.

d) The Trial Court has committed grave error of law

without considering that the accused No. 1 to 7 wer e

holding wooden sticks and stones in their hands and

scolding in abusing filthy language. At that time t he

witnesses went to rescue CW11, but were abused in f ilthy

language by the accused and accused No.1 assaulted CW4

using wooden sticks on his head and left shoulder, accused

No.2 assaulted CW-5 on his head and also on the rig ht

knee, which is not properly appreciated by the trial Court.

Further accused No.3 assaulted CW6 with hands, accu sed

no. 4 assaulted CW7 with stone, Accused no. 6 assau lted

CW8 on his chest, accused no. 4 assaulted CW1 on hi s

head, and also CW9 with hands on back and chest, ac cused

no. 9 and 3 assaulted CW9 with stone on left should er,

accused no. 8 assaulted CW9 on his head with stone. This

CRL.A NO.100594/2024

- 9 -

overt act committed by all the accused persons is n ot

properly appreciated by the trial Court.

f) Trial Court committed grave error of law without

observing that the accused persons damaged the hous e of

the CW1., all the witnesses were injured and have t aken

treatment at OPD CW1 has lodged the complaint as pe r

Ex.P1 and police have recorded the further statement of the

CW1 and also identified 2 sticks and 8 stones which are

marked as MO1 and MO2. This evidence is not properl y

appreciated by the trial Court.

g) The Trial Court committed grave error of law

without observing the statement given by PW8, the d octor

who treated the injured witnesses and issued wound

certificate as per Ex. P2 to 9.

h) The Trial Court committed grave error of law

without taking into consideration, the sole witness as per

Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act in respect of considering

the member quality of witnesses and not quantity.

CRL.A NO.100594/2024

- 10 -

i) The trial court ought to have taken into

consideration the statement of injured witnesses, w ound

certificate issued by PW8, statement given by witne sses

which cannot be discarded.

9. On these grounds, the appellant/state has

prayed for allowing the appeal, setting aside the impugned

judgment of acquittal and convicting the accused fo r the

offences alleged against them.

10. Heard Sri.T.H. Hanumareddy the Addl. SPP

appearing for the appellant-State, heard Sri. M.Maregouda

the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused.

11. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and

on perusal of the entire evidence on record as well as the

memorandum of appeal, the following point arises fo r our

consideration:

“Whether the impugned judgment of the trial

Court suffers from illegality, perversity and calls for

interference by this Court?”

CRL.A NO.100594/2024

- 11 -

12. For convenient reference, the particulars of th e

witnesses examined by the prosecution and the subst ance

of their evidence are setout as under:-

13. PW1 Kubera in his evidence deposed, in

consonance with the complaint Ex.P.1 to the effect that,

when they were infront of grand father’s house, acc used

persons came together with weapons, picked up quarr el

with their grand father in connection with errectio n of

compound and they assaulted them, due to which they took

treatment in the hospital and filed the complaint.

a). PW2 by name Lokesh, PW3 by name

Doddabasappa, PW4 by name Tippeswamy, PW5 Girish,

PW6 Chandrashekhar, PW7 Umapati who are all injured

persons deposed similarly as deposed by the complai nant

PW1

b). PW8, Dr. Hari Dattatreya deposed that on

08.05.2016 when he was in hospital, 8 injured persons with

the history of assault came for treatement. He exa mined

CRL.A NO.100594/2024

- 12 -

the injured Lokesh, Kubera, Doddabasappa, Tippeswam y,

Girish, Bharat, Chandrashekhar and Umapati and issued

wound certificates as per Ex.P.2 to 9 respectively.

c). PW9 M. Anvar, the then ASI deposed about the

receipt of the complaint and registering the FIR as per

Ex.P10.

d). PW10 Nagaraj and PW11 Hemanna are said to be

the eye witnesses to the incident who have not supp orted

the prosecution case.

e). PW12 Chandrashekhar said to be the witness to

spot and seizure panchanama Ex.P.13. But, he has n ot

supported the prosecution case.

f). PW13 B.M. Honnurbabu the then ASI deposed

about the part of the investigation.

g). PW14 M. Vasant Kumar is the PSI who conducted

further investigation and filed the charge sheet.

CRL.A NO.100594/2024

- 13 -

14. On the basis of evidence of the aforesaid

witnesses, learned Addl. SPP argued that, in this case the

accused formed unlawful assembly in connection with the

erecting of compound on the road which is meant for

passage of the accused and others and also attempte d to

kill the complainant and others. In this case PW1 to PW7

are the injured persons and they deposed about the incident

and injuries sustained by them. Further, their evidence is

also corroborated with the evidence of PW8 and majo r

witnesses also supported the prosecution version i. e.

seizure of material object MO1 i.e. clubs and MO2 i .e.

stones. Despite the clear and convincing evidence, the

learned Sessions Judge, without properly appreciating their

evidence, erroneously acquitted them.

15. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

accused/respondents argued that according to the

prosecution, incident happened on 08.05.2016, but

complaint is lodged on 10.05.2016. Therefore, there is

delay in lodging the complaint. The accused No.4 ha s also

CRL.A NO.100594/2024

- 14 -

filed a counter case and counter complaint. Both the cases

were investigated by the same Investigating Officer .

Further, all the injuries sustained by the injured witnesses

are all simple in nature and therefore it is argued that the

Learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the

evidence on record and has came to the right conclu sion

that, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore it is argued

that this Court need not interfere with the finding of the trial

Court. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

16. On going through the impugned judgment, it is

observed that the learned Sessions Judge has pointe d out

that though P.W.1 to PW7, have sustained injuries, however

their evidence did not corroborate with that of any other

independent witnesses. Other independent witnesses like

Panchas have also not supported the case of the

prosecution. Such being the case, prosecution has failed to

prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and ther efore

CRL.A NO.100594/2024

- 15 -

the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned judg ment

acquitting all the accused of all the offences.

17. Learned Additional SPP argued that though the

evidence of injured witnesses has not corroborated with any

other evidence of independent witnesses, however th e

injured witnesses who stepped into the witness box had

deposed about the incident. They sustained the inju ry,

further they immediately went to the hospital and took the

treatment and also wound certificates marked as Exh ibits

P2 to P9 establish that they have sustained the all eged

injuries. Therefore, their evidence self-sufficient to prove

the guilt of the accused and their evidence need no t be

corroborated with any other independent witnesses.

18. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the

accused/respondent argued that even these accused h ave

also sustained injuries in the said incident. Accused never

went to assault the complainant or any other injure d

persons. They themselves (complainant and others) p icked

up quarrel and in the said quarrel they have sustained the

CRL.A NO.100594/2024

- 16 -

injuries. After that, the accused have taken treatment in the

hospital and lodged the complaint, before the Bellary rural

police station in Crime No.208/2016 for the offence s

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504

R/w 149 IPC.

19. It is contended that in this case, earlier the

complainant registered case against accused for the similar

offences. However later, again case was registered for the

offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC only to

implicate these accused persons for higher offence. Further

it is argued that the same Investigating Officer wh o

conducted the investigation on the complaint filed by

Honnurswami, who is the accused No.4 in this case i s the

Investigating Officer herein as well and after completion of

the investigation the police filed a charge sheet against this

complainant and other injured persons which is regi stered

as SC No. 47/ 2022 and in that case after the trial, these

injured persons were acquitted of all the offences. Against

which the State has not filed any appeal.

CRL.A NO.100594/2024

- 17 -

20. The learned counsel for the respondent has

produced the charge sheet, the evidence of the witnesses of

the prosecution, and the judgment passed in SC

No.47/2022. Further, respondent has relied upon the

judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of State of

Rajasthan v. Hanuman in Criminal Appeal No. 631/

2017. It is argued that the law is well settled by catena of

decisions of this Court that in an appeal against acquittal,

interference can only be made if the only possible view

based on the evidence points to the guilt of the accused and

rules out his innocence.

21. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused

argued that, in the present facts and circumstances as

dispute arose in respect of the erection of compound and on

both sides they lodged the complaint and both groups have

sustained injuries and both the injured have taken the

treatment in the hospital, the complaint lodged by the

accused against the complainant in the present case and

other injured persons, after the trial, all the complainant

CRL.A NO.100594/2024

- 18 -

and injured persons were acquitted of the offences, the

State has not filed any appeal against such acquittal, and

the trial Court has properly appreciated the eviden ce on

record and has come to the right conclusion that th e

prosecution has failed to prove the case and accord ingly

acquitted the accused and therefore relying on the aforesaid

judgment of the respondent as argued in this case, the

impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, acquit ting

the accused cannot be interfered with.

22. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, i t

has been rightly observed by the learned Sessions J udge

that, though PW1 to PW7 are the injured witnesses a nd

they took treatment in the hospital, however, the

independent witnesses, PW10 and PW11, have not

supported the prosecution version, by stating that they

have not seen the incident at all, PW12 has stated that he

does not know the contents of Ex.P13 i.e. spot

panchanama, and further in the evidence of the inj ured

witnesses PW1 to PW7 there is a delay in lodging th e

CRL.A NO.100594/2024

- 19 -

complaint. Though it is stated in the complaint that they

were admitted in the hospital and that thereafter they filed

the complaint however, on perusal of the medical

documents it discloses that PW1 and PW2 were the in jured

witnesses admitted to the hospital on 08.05.2016 an d

discharged on the next day that means on 09.05.2016 .

Furthermore, the other injured witnesses who have n ot

taken treatment as an inpatient could have lodged t he

complaint soon after the incident. But there is a delay of 2

days in lodging the complaint. Taking into consideration all

these facts and circumstances, the trial court after perusal

of materials on record has acquitted these injured persons

of the said offences. Apart from that there was cou nter

complaint against these injured persons and case wa s

registered against them. Taking into consideration all these

aspects, we are of the opinion that the Prosecution has

failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any

reasonable doubt. The Trial judge has rightly appre ciated

the evidence on record and has come to the right conclusion

and acquitted the accused. The grounds urged in this appeal

CRL.A NO.100594/2024

- 20 -

are devoid of merit and do not warrant any interference of

this court. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following

order:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

The judgment and order of acquittal dated

07.06.2023 passed by the learned II Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Ballari, in S.C. No.04/2018 is

hereby confirmed.

The bail bonds and surety bonds, if any, executed

by the accused shall stand discharged.

The Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court

Records forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)

JUDGE

Sd/-

(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)

JUDGE

KKP

CT-CMU