Karnataka High Court
Sri. Subhas S/O Channabasappa ... vs Smt. Usha W/O Suresh Savadi on 13 August, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10217
CRL.A No. 100420 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100420 OF 2024 (A)
BETWEEN:
SHRI SUBHAS S/O CHANNABASAPPA DANAPPANAVAR,
AGE 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: PRABHU NIVAS, MULAGUND BUILDING, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
4TH CROSS, NARAYANPUR, DHARWAD-580 008.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. USHA W/O SURESH SAVADI,
AGE 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: BASAVA SHIDDESHWAR KRUPA,
TRAINING COLLEGE ROAD, DHARWAD-580 001.
RAKESH
S
HARIHAR 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by
RAKESH S HARIHAR
THROUGH DHARWAD RURAL POLICE STATION,
Location: HIGHCOURT
OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
03.06.2024 IN CC NO.856/2023 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 434, 441, 504 AND 511 OF IPC, CONVICT THE
ACCUSED.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10217
CRL.A No. 100420 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. This appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. is
filed by the de facto complainant, assailing the judgment
and order of acquittal passed by the Court of I-Addl. Senior
Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad in C.C. No.856 of 2023,
dated 3rd June 2024.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned HCGP for respondent No.2. Respondent No.1
who is served in the matter has remained unrepresented
before this Court.
3. The appellant had filed a private complaint
against respondent No.1, who is his sister, and the same
was referred to the Jurisdictional Police by the learned
Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The Police
after investigation had filed the "B Final Report" in the said
case. The same was opposed by the de facto complainant
and therefore, after recording the sworn statement of the
de facto complainant, cognizance of the alleged offences
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10217
HC-KAR
punishable under Sections 434, 441, 504 and 511 of IPC
was taken by the learned Magistrate and the Registry was
directed to register a criminal case for the alleged offences
against respondent No.1.
4. In the said proceedings, the de facto complainant
had examined himself as PW1 and two other witnesses
were examined as PW2 and PW3. Twelve documents were
marked in support of the case of the complainant. On behalf
of the defence, no evidence was led, nor was any document
got marked.
5. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments
addressed on both sides, vide impugned judgment and
order has acquitted respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the
same the de facto complainant is before this Court.
6. The allegation against respondent No.1 - accused
is that, she along with her henchmen had forcibly removed
the cement poles and fencing of the property causing loss
to the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant is the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10217
HC-KAR
elder brother of respondent No.1. It appears that there is
some civil dispute between them with regard to landed
property and a suit in O.S. No.193 of 2017 was filed before
the jurisdictional Civil Court, which had ended with a
compromise between the parties.
7. In order to substantiate the allegations against
respondent No.1, the de facto complainant had examined
himself as PW1 and reading of his deposition would make it
very clear that he was not a witness to the alleged act of
the accused. Further, during the course of his deposition he
has said that about 60 cement poles were removed and for
the said purpose of removing 60 cement poles, it may take
about two days. He also has stated that there were certain
other persons along with respondent No.1, but he was not
in a position to name them. PW2 is the owner of the house
in which the de facto complainant was residing. Even PW2 is
not a witness to the alleged incident. PW3 is the brother of
the de facto complainant. He has also stated that he had
not seen the accused committing the alleged offence and he
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10217
HC-KAR
had appeared before the Court for deposing at the request
of his brother. Except the aforesaid three witnesses, no
other witnesses have been examined on behalf of the de
facto complainant before the trial Court. It is under these
circumstances, the trial Court has acquitted respondent
No.1 of the alleged offences. I do not find any illegality and
irregularity in the said judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the trial Court. It is trite that, in a normal
circumstance, this Court should interfere with the judgment
and order of acquittal and it is only if it is found that the
judgment and order of acquittal is either perverse or per se
illegal, this Court can entertain an appeal filed against the
order of acquittal.
8. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good
ground to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, the Criminal
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
VNP / CT: BCK
