Karnataka High Court
Bharat Malagi vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2025
-1-
CRL.A. NO.100182/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100182 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
BHARAT MALAGI S/O. GUDLEPPA MALAGI
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: FRAMER,
R/O. BEHIND SIDDHIPRIYA KALYANA NAGAR,
HOSAPETE, BALLARI, KARNATAKA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. L.S.SULLAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH PSI RURAL POLICE STATION,
HOSAPETE, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
2. NAGARAJA S/O. LT.SHARANAPPA
AGE: 40 YEARS, R/O. 12TH WARD,
KALYANA NAGARA, HOSAPETE,
BALLARI, KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWADE, SPP FOR R1;
SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADV. FOR R2 (ABSENT))
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.377(1)(B) OF
Cr.P.C., PRAYING TO, CALL FOR TRIAL COURT RECORDS IN
S.C.NO.5026/2016 ON THE FILE OF IIIRD ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE BALLARI, (SITTING AT HOSAPETE); SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IN SC NO.5026/2016 DATED
21.10.2022 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BALLARI (SITTING AT HOSAPETE) AND CONVICT
RESPONDENT NO.2 (ACCUSED) PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
448, 504, 307, 324 OF IPC.
-2-
CRL.A. NO.100182/2023
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
14.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The complainant has preferred this appeal against
the judgment dated 21.10.2022 passed by the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at
Hosapete) in S.C.No.5026/2016, wherein the learned
Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent
No.2/accused for the offences punishable under Sections
448, 504, 307 and 324 of IPC.
2. P.W.1, Bharath Malagi, lodged a complaint with
P.W.14 on 22.09.2015 at around 9:30 p.m., alleging that
the accused, his adjoining neighbor, had an ongoing
dispute with his family regarding the compound wall,
leading to strained relations. According to the complaint,
on the same day at approximately 7:30 p.m., while the
complainant's mother (P.W.4) was preparing roti, the
accused unlawfully entered their property by crossing the
compound wall and began verbally abusing her with
offensive language. Upon hearing the commotion, the
complainant's brother, Santosh (P.W.3), questioned the
accused about his behavior. In response, the accused,
angered by the inquiry, further abused the complainant's
family, threatened to finish off the complainant, and
rushed back to his house. He allegedly armed with a
chopper, re-entered the complainant's premises, and
attempted to strike P.W.3 on the neck. However, the
complainant managed to snatch the weapon from the
accused, sustaining a bleeding injury to his right palm in
the process. The accused also allegedly dragged the
complainant's father into the altercation and hurled verbal
abuses at him.
3. Following this incident, P.W.1 and P.W.3, having
sustained injuries and feeling threatened, filed a complaint
at the jurisdictional police station. A case was registered
against the accused in Crime No. 145/2015 for offenses
punishable under Sections 504, 307, 323, and 448 of the
IPC. Upon committal of the case, the Sessions Judge
framed charges against the accused, who pleaded not
guilty and opted for trial. The prosecution, in an attempt
to establish the guilt of the accused, examined 16
witnesses and submitted 24 documents, marked as Exs.P1
to P24, along with three material objects (M.Os.1 to 3). In
his defense, the accused produced nine documents,
marked as Exs.D1 to D9. After evaluating the evidence,
the Sessions Court acquitted the accused of all charges.
The complainant has now challenged this judgment of
acquittal before this court.
4. The complainant's counsel argues that the
Sessions Judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence on
record, leading to an erroneous acquittal. He asserts that
the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 3, along with that of P.W.2
(the complainant's father), sufficiently establish the
allegations against the accused beyond a reasonable
doubt. He further highlights the medical evidence, citing
the testimony of P.W.11 (the doctor) and the wound
certificates marked as Exs.P14 and P15, which
substantiate the prosecution's case. The counsel also
points to the statement of P.W.2, who acted as a pancha
witness, confirming the identification of material objects as
per Ex.P2. Additionally, he refers to the forensic report
from the Deputy Director of RFSL, which detected human
blood of group 'B' on the machete, T-shirt, and gauze
piece. He contends that this crucial evidence was
disregarded by the Sessions Judge, leading to a flawed
acquittal that warrants intervention by this court.
5. In contrast, the counsel for the
respondent/accused argues that his client, a practicing
advocate with a respected standing in society, has been
falsely implicated due to a pre-existing property dispute
with the complainant's family. He emphasizes that apart
from P.Ws.1 to 4, none of the other key witnesses (P.Ws.5
to 9) corroborated the prosecution's claims, as they turned
hostile, significantly weakening the case. He also points
out the inconsistencies and contradictions in the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, asserting that
these discrepancies further erode the credibility of the
allegations. He contends that the defence evidence clearly
demonstrates the existence of a long-standing dispute,
indicating that the complaint was filed with the intent to
harass the accused. Given the prosecution's failure to
prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, he maintains
that the Sessions Judge rightfully acquitted the accused,
and no interference by this court is warranted.
6. In light of these arguments and the evidence on
record, the court must now determine whether the
Sessions Judge's findings suffer from legal or factual errors
that necessitate a reconsideration of the acquittal.
7. The following point would arise for our
consideration:
Whether the Sessions court was justified in
acquitting the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 448, 504, 307 and
324 of IPC?
8. Upon careful examination of the evidence
presented before the Sessions Court, it is noticed that the
prosecution examined a total of sixteen witnesses. Among
them, P.W.1 is the complainant and one of the injured
parties, while P.W.3, the elder brother of P.W.1, is also an
injured witness in the case. The crux of the complaint
revolves around an incident that occurred on 22.09.2015
at approximately 7:30 p.m. The complainant alleged that
the accused unlawfully trespassed into their compound
and engaged in verbal abuse directed at the complainant's
family. The provocation for this altercation, as per the
complaint, was the accused's grievance that the
preparation of roti by P.W.1's mother was causing him
distress. In a fit of rage, the accused purportedly retreated
to his house, retrieved a machete, and subsequently
assaulted P.W.3. However, as per the complaint, P.W.3
managed to shield himself from the attack, and in the
ensuing struggle, P.W.1 sustained injuries to his palm
while attempting to seize the weapon from the accused.
9. During the trial, there was a notable divergence
in the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.3 from what was
originally stated in the complaint. Both witnesses provided
an improved version of the incident, stating that P.W.1
intervened and successfully blocked the accused from
attacking P.W.3, which led to his injuries. This variation in
their testimonies presents an inconsistency when
compared to the original complaint, wherein it was stated
that P.W.1 sustained injuries while trying to snatch the
weapon from the accused. Additionally, a critical
discrepancy was noted in the medical evidence. The
wound certificate, marked as Ex.P15, originally indicated
that the injury was on the left palm of P.W.1, but a
subsequent alteration replaced the word "left" with "right."
Moreover, the second lacerated wound mentioned in the
medical records lacks specificity regarding whether the
injury was sustained on the right or left hand. These
inconsistencies undermine the credibility of the
prosecution's narrative.
10. Further, although the prosecution cited P.Ws.4
to 9 as eyewitnesses who allegedly intervened to pacify
the situation, none of these witnesses corroborated the
prosecution's case. They turned hostile and refrained from
supporting the allegations made against the accused. In
the absence of independent corroboration, the case rests
solely on the testimonies of the complainant and his family
members, which raises concerns regarding its reliability.
The prosecution failed to provide compelling evidence to
establish beyond doubt that the accused trespassed into
the complainant's compound with a deadly weapon and
attempted to cause grievous harm.
11. The defence presented by the accused provides
a contextual background to the dispute between both
parties. The evidence adduced by the accused suggests
that there was a pre-existing conflict between him and the
complainant's family. The records indicate that the
accused had raised objections concerning the
complainant's construction of a latrine, which was
allegedly in violation of setback norms. The accused had
taken formal steps to address this issue by approaching
the City Municipal Council (CMC), which, after conducting
an enquiry, directed the complainant and P.W.3 to remove
the unauthorized construction and maintain the legally
required setback. This directive was substantiated through
- 10 -
documentary evidence, including photographs marked as
Exs.P6 and D6. Moreover, the complainant and his
brother, P.W.3, had provided an undertaking to the CMC
authorities, affirming their compliance with the order to
remove the latrine and adhere to the setback regulations.
This prior dispute between the parties casts doubt on the
complainant's motives for initiating the present criminal
proceedings against the accused.
12. On a comprehensive assessment of the
evidence, it is evident that the essential ingredients
required to establish an offence under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) have not been satisfactorily
proven by the prosecution. To secure a conviction under
this provision, the prosecution was required to conclusively
demonstrate that the accused wielded a chopper (M.O.1)
with the intent to cause fatal injuries. Additionally, the
prosecution needed to establish that the bloodstains on
M.O.1 belonged to the complainant, P.W.1. However, the
prosecution failed to present conclusive forensic evidence
to substantiate this claim. The alleged trespass by the
- 11 -
accused into the complainant's compound has also not
been substantiated with independent and reliable
evidence.
13. A re-evaluation of the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, particularly P.Ws.1 to 4, reveals
substantial inconsistencies that weaken the case against
the accused. The modifications in the narrative presented
during the trial indicate an apparent embellishment of
facts. The acrimonious relationship between the
complainant's family and the accused is further evidenced
by the dispute over the latrine construction, which had
prompted the accused to seek intervention from the CMC
authorities. This sequence of events suggests that the
criminal complaint may have been filed as a retaliatory
measure against the accused, rather than a genuine
prosecution for an act of attempted murder. Furthermore,
the failure of independent witnesses to corroborate the
prosecution's allegations further diminishes the reliability
of the evidence presented.
- 12 -
14. The defence has successfully demonstrated that
there existed a prolonged conflict between the
complainant's family and the accused, supported by
documentary evidence marked as Exs.D1 to D9. The
strained relations between both parties, particularly in
light of the dispute concerning the latrine construction and
the setback violations, cast serious doubts on the
credibility of the allegations made by the complainant.
Given the inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence,
the absence of independent corroboration, and the
plausible alternative motive for filing the complaint, we
find that the prosecution has failed to establish the
accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Sessions
Court was, therefore, justified in acquitting the accused of
the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 307, and
324 of IPC. On reassessment of the entire material on
record, we find no compelling grounds to overturn the
findings of the trial court. The appeal, being devoid of
merit, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, point
formulated is answered in the negative.
- 13 -
ORDER
The criminal appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
MBS
Ct:vh
