Karnataka High Court
Puttaswamygowda vs State By Hirisave Police on 2 December, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No.498 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.498 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. PUTTASWAMYGOWDA
S/O NANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
2. MANJEGOWDA
S/O PUTTASWAMYGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
3. VANAJAKSHI
W/O MANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
HIRISAVE HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH B.BALADARE, ADV.
AND:
STATE BY HIRISAVE POLICE,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY KUM. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL SPP.)
-2-
CRL.A No.498 of 2015
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.3.2015, PASSED BY THE
FAST TRACK COURT AND ADDL. SESSION JUDGE,
CHANNARAYAPATNA, IN CRL.A.NO.149/2014 BY CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.06.2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA IN C.C.NO.423/2013
- CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 323,326,504,506 R/W 34 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:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 28.03.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.149/2014 by the Fast Track Court and Additional Sessions Judge at Channarayapattana (for short "the first appellate Court"), whereby the judgment of acquittal dated: 05.06.2014 passed in C.C. No.423/2013 by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapattana (for short "
the trial court"), came to be set aside
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to their rank as before the trial Court. -3- CRL.A No.498 of 2015
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Sub- Inspector of Police, Hirisave Police Station laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 04th October, 2008 at about 10.30 am, a panchayat was conducted in property bearing Sy.No.81 in respect of the properties of the complainant-Sri Kapanigowda. At that time, the accused contending that no proper panchayat was conducted in their favour, hence, accused No.1 abused CW2 in filthy language. At that time, the accused No.2 assaulted CW2 on his head with a sickle resulting in bleeding injury and the accused No.1 also assaulted CW2 by his hands resulting in pain and the accused No.4 assaulted CW2 and all the accused threatened the CW2 with dire consequences. Accordingly, CW1 has lodged the complaint.
5. After investigation, Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court has framed charges for the commission of alleged offences. Same was -4- CRL.A No.498 of 2015 read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the guilt of the accused, six witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 6 and three documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P3 and one material object marked as MO.1. On closure of prosecution side evidence, the statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.
7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has acquitted the accused for offences under Sections 323, 326, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the appeal before the Fast Track Court and Additional Sessions Court at Channarayapatna, in Crl. Apl. No.149 of 2014. The appeal came to be allowed and acquittal judgment passed by the trial Court in CC No.423 of 2013 dated 05th June 2014, was set aside. Consequently, the accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, -5- CRL.A No.498 of 2015 326, 504, 506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and the trial Court sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accused 1 to 3 were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. Accused were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 506 read with 34 Indian Penal Code and further accused are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
9. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there is a civil dispute between the complainant and accused. In that background, the panchayat was held. When panchayat was not in favour of the accused, they assaulted the complainant and threatened with dire consequences. Based on -6- CRL.A No.498 of 2015 such allegations, the complaint came to be filed and the case was filed before the trial Court. After proper appreciation of the evidence of PWs1 to 6, the trial Court has acquitted the accused. There is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court. The First Appellate Court without appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective, has ignorantly, based on some contradiction and misconception of facts, set aside the judgment of acquittal and convicted the accused for alleged offences.
11. Further, it is submitted that after examining the independent witnesses, no police witnesses including the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation, were examined by the prosecution. Apparently, the said facts goes against the prosecution, thereby the prosecution has failed to prove the contents of the respective documents which are ought to be relied upon to prove the case of the prosecution. Merely the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 itself is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and these aspects were not appreciated by the First Appellate Court while convicting the accused by reversing the judgment of the acquittal. Ex.P3- wound certificate and evidence of PW6 will not disclose the name of the accused. There is no consistency in the evidence of -7- CRL.A No.498 of 2015 prosecution witnesses regarding the incident, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
12. The learned Additional SPP Ms. Asma Kouser, appearing for the respondent-State, would submit that the First Appellate Court has properly appreciated the materials on record and has convicted the accused for commission of alleged offences and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
13. I have heard the arguments on both sides. On perusal of the materials available on the record, the following points would arise for consideration:
1. Whether the First Appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court?
2. What order?
Regarding Point No.1:
14. I have examined the materials place before this court. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 04th October, -8- CRL.A No.498 of 2015 2008 at about 10.30 am, a panchayat was conducted in property bearing Sy.No.81 in respect of the properties of the complainant-Sri Kapanigowda. At that time, the accused contended that no proper panchayat was conducted in their favour, hence, the accused No.1 abused CW2 in filthy language. At that time, the accused No.2 assaulted CW2 on his head with a sickle resulting in bleeding injury and the accused No.1 has also assaulted CW2 by his hands resulting in pain and the accused No.4 has also assaulted CW2 and all the accused threatened the CW2 with dire consequences. Thus the accused has committed the alleged offences. To prove the guilt of the accused, six witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 6 and three documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P3 and one material object marked as MO.1.
15. To substantiate the case of prosecution, PW1-
Kapinigowda is examined. He has deposed his evidence that about four years back, dispute arose between them and the accused regarding land. To resolve the dispute, panchayat was held near their land. In that panchayat CWs2, 3 to 6 were present. Accused were also present. Accused have not agreed for the decision of the panchayat. When accused No.1 picked up CW2 and abused him in filthy language. Accused No.2 gave -9- CRL.A No.498 of 2015 blow to him with a sickle on his head. Accused No.3 held the tuft of CW2 and dragged her. About 3 to 6 persons, who have gathered for panchayat, intervened and separated the scuffle. He snatched the sickle from the hands of accused No.2 and then shifted his son to Hirisave Hospital. Accused threatened him that they will kill him. On the next day he lodged the complaint with the police. Hence, there was delay in filing the complaint. Thereafter, police came to the spot and conducted mahazar as per Exhibit P2 and seized material object, i.e. the sickle. PW2-Govindaraju has also deposed as to the scuffle as deposed by PW1.
16. PW3-Mallegowda and PW4-Shivegowda have deposed that on the date of alleged incident, they have gathered to with respect to panchayat between the accused and the complainant. The accused have not agreed for the panchayat decision and then accused picked up quarrel with CW2 and 3 to 6, dragged CW2 and gave blow on the backside of the head with sickle. Then he and others intervened and separated them.
PW5-Mallikarjun has deposited regarding Exhibit P2-mahazar and also seizure of MO1. PW6-B.N. Shivaswamy has deposed
- 10 -
CRL.A No.498 of 2015in his evidence as to the examination of the injured and also issuance of wound certificate-Exhibit P3.
17. The alleged incident took place on 4th October, 2008 at 10:30 am. Complaint came to be filed on 5th October, 2008 at 5.00 pm, and the FIR reached the Court on the same day at 11:15 pm. Exhibit P3-wound certificate reveals that the injured was admitted to the hospital with history of assault on 4th October, 2008. In the wound certificate, the name of the accused and the weapon used for commission of offence is not shown. When the injured admitted to the hospital with the history of assault, it is the duty of the medical officer to register the case as medico-legal case and to report the same to the jurisdictional Police. But the medical officer has not registered medico-legal case and intimated the same the police. Medical officer is examined PW6. He has not whispered anything against accused. He has not deposed as to non-registration of medical legal case. The investigating officer has not been examined by the prosecution as to why he has not collected any evidence, as also, for non-mentioning of the name of the accused and the weapon used in the wound certificate. Therefore, the delay in filing the First Information Report will create a reasonable doubt as to the act of the accused. Exhibit
- 11 -
CRL.A No.498 of 2015P3-wound certificate reveals that the injured has sustained following injuries:
"(1) There is an incised ½ x 4cm in the occipital region (2) Age of the wound ½ hour to 1 hour (one hour) Referred to C.T. Scan C.T. Scan report enclosed."
18. The Doctor has opined that the injuries are grievous in nature. CT scan report and x-ray has not been produced by the prosecution. Even the investigating officer has not collected the case sheet maintained by the concerned medical officer to show that injured was admitted to the hospital as an in-patient. Absolutely, there is no evidence to prove that the injured has sustained "grievous hurt" as defined in section 320 of Indian Penal Code. There is no evidence to constitute the offence under section 326 of Indian Penal Code. The first appellate Court has convicted the accused for offence punishable under section 326 of Indian Penal Code, which is not sustainable under law.
19. With regard to other offences are concerned, it is a case of the prosecution that there is dispute between the accused and CW1 regarding the land. To solve their dispute, they have gathered for conducting panchayat. The investigating officer has not collected any information as to the
- 12 -
CRL.A No.498 of 2015land dispute between the accused and the complainant. The prosecution has also not explained anything regarding the land dispute between the accused and CW1. In the absence of any material piece of evidence in this regard, it is very difficult to accept the version of prosecution witnesses. Apart from this, during the course of cross-examination of PW1-Kapinigowda, he has clearly admitted that, two days prior to Panchayat galata took place and in that galata, accused assaulted his son on his head with sickle and he lodged complaint with the police. His son has taken treatment in Hirisave Hospital for a period of one week. The police had come to the spot and recorded the statement of his son. PW2 has also deposed that he took treatment for about period of one week in the hospital. PW3 has deposed that he do not know the exact date of the alleged incident and the police have not recorded his statement. Further, he has stated that only at the instance of CW1, he has deposed before the court as to the galata. He has deposed in his cross-examination that there was land dispute between accused and CW2 prior to the alleged incident.
20. On careful examination of the entire evidence placed before this Court, the material evidence does not inspire confidence as to their witness. Evidence of prosecution will
- 13 -
CRL.A No.498 of 2015falsify the contents of Exhibit P1 and also Exhibit P3-wound certificate. Though the injured had taken treatment for a period of one week, the investigating officer has not collected any material in this regard. The delay in filing the complaint, the statement of admission made by the material witnesses in their cross-examination, disclose that the complaint is filed only as an after-thought, taking advantage of the injuries caused to the injured prior to the alleged incident. Whether the accused have participated in the earlier incident or not has not been disclosed by prosecution. Absolutely, there is no cogent, consisting, trustworthy evidence before the court. The trial court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective. Unfortunately, the first appellate court has reversed the judgement of acquittal passed by the trial Court, without assigning proper reasons. Accordingly, the appellants have made out ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the first appellate court. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative. Regarding Point No.2:
21. For the reasons and discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following:
- 14 -
CRL.A No.498 of 2015
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed
ii. Judgment of conviction and order and sentence dated 28.03.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.149/2014 by the Fast Track Court and Additional Sessions Judge at Channarayapattana, is set aside; iii. Judgement of acquittal dated 05th June, 2014 passed in CC No.423 of 2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna, is confirmed; iv. Appellants/accused are acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 326, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code;
v. The concerned Court is directed to refund the
fine amount, if any, in deposit by the
appellants/accused;
vi. Registry to send the copy of this judgment along with the trial court records to the concerned court, forthwith.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn