[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

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. 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

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,

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

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

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,

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

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 -

in 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 -

P3-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 -

land 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 -

falsify 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 -





                                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;