Karnataka High Court
Parvati vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:739
CRL.A No. 200006 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200006 OF 2022
(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
PARVATI W/O SHARANAPPA NAIKODI
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O HARSOOR VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI - 585102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MARTHANDAPPA MALLESHAPPA ALLUR, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MAHAGAON P.S., TQ. KAMALAPUR,
DIST. KALABURAGI - 585316,
REPRESENTED BY THE SPP,
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by
RAMESH KALABURAGI BENCH.
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH
...RESPONDENT
COURT OF (BY SRI SIDDALING PATIL, ADDL. SPP)
KARNATAKA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED
19.11.2021 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT KALABURAGI IN SESSIONS CASE.No.231/2017
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED A-5 FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 143, 147, 323, 504 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:739
CRL.A No. 200006 of 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
This appeal is by the convicted accused No.5 directed
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
19.11.2021 passed in Sessions Case No.231/2017 by the III
Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi (hereinafter
referred to as 'learned Sessions Judge'), whereby the learned
Sessions Judge has sentenced the appellant/accused No.5 alog
with other accused i.e., accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 for the
offence punishable under Section 143 of IPC. In default to pay
fine amount, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period three months. Further, sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/-
each for the offence punishable under Section 147 of IPC. In
default to pay fine amount, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three months. Further, sentenced
to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under
Section 323 of IPC. In default to pay fine amount, they shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Further, sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the
offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. In default to pay
NC: 2025:KHC-K:739
fine amount, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three months.
2. The factual matrix of the case are that:
On 23.12.2014 at about 2.15 p.m., PW.12 the then Sub-
Inspector of Police of the respondent-police received the MLC
from the Government General Hospital, Kalaburagi and thereby
he visited the said hospital and recorded the statement of one
PW.1-the injured as per Ex.P1, wherein it is stated that during
the year 2013, the son-in-law of PW.1 by name Hanamant and
his father by name Ambanna Kattolli sold the land bearing
Sy.No.171 measuring 4 acres to accused No.1 one
Jagadevappa. The said sale transaction was not informed to the
daughter of the complainant by her husband and her father-in-
law. As such, the daughter of the complainant has filed a civil
dispute before the civil Court at Kalaburagi against the accused
No.1. Hence, there was an ill-will between accused Nos.1 to 3
and PW.1. On this backdrop, on 23.12.2024 at about 7.00
a.m., when the complainant was standing near Hanuman
Temple, accused No.1 came there and took up a row with her
and thereby assaulted her with stone on her back and head. On
hearing the hue and quarrel, her brothers PWs.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6
NC: 2025:KHC-K:739
came to the spot and tried to pacify the quarrel. At that time,
all other accused abused them and assaulted not only PW.1 but
also to them. All of them sustained injuries and took treatment
for the same. Accordingly, on the strength of Ex.P11, PW.12
has registered the FIR against the appellant and others for the
offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323,
324, 504 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC. However, accused No.1 also
filed a complaint against PWs.1 to 6, 13 and others in respect
of the same incident, the said complaint also registered in
Crime No.113/2014 for the offence punishable under Section
307 of IPC. After completing the investigation, the Investigating
Officer laid the charge sheet in both the cases before the
committal Court. However, the case in Crime No.113/2014
committed before the Sessions Court and the crime
No.114/2014 arising out of the same incident of a counter case
also tried before the Sessions Judge i.e., III Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi.
3. In order to prove the charges levelled against the
accused, the prosecution collectively examined 13 witnesses as
PW.1 to PW.13, marked 11 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:739
identified 04 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.4. On behalf of
defence, one document is marked as Ex.D1.
4. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the
learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating evidence of
material witnesses to the accused as stipulated in Section 313
of Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the same. The defence
of the accused is of absolute denial and that of false
implication.
5. After assessment of oral and documentary evidence
placed before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge
convicted this appellant and other accused for the charges
levelled against them and sentenced them as stated supra. The
said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged
in this appeal by accused No.5.
6. I have heard the learned Sri. Marthandappa
Malleshappa Allur, learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor Sri. Siddaling P. Patil for
the respondent-State and perused the records.
7. On careful examination of the evidence available on
record, in order to prove the charges leveled against this
NC: 2025:KHC-K:739
appellant though the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and
amongst them PWs.1 to 6 and 13 are the injured eye-witnesses
to the incident. On perusal of their evidence, though PW.1 re-
iterated in her evidence that she has not stated about the
presence of this appellant at the scene of occurrence. PWs.2
and 4 also stated similarly as that of PW.1 and they supported
the case of the prosecution. Both of them not whispered
anything about the presence of this appellant in the scene of
occurrence. However, PW.3 has stated that the appellant has
assaulted PW.5 by hand. The said version of PW.3 also
supported by PW.6 and 13. However, on perusal of the
evidence of PW.5, though he has stated in his evidence that
this appellant has assaulted by hand on his person in the cross-
examination, he has stated that the said aspect was not stated
by him before the police at the time of recording his 161
statement. Nevertheless, the said aspect was confronted to
PW12-the Investigating Officer- wherein PW.5 has admitted
that these witnesses have not gave such statement before him.
In such circumstances, there is omission on the part of
evidence of PW.5 in respect of the overt-act this accused is
concerned. As discussed supra, the other eye-witnesses i.e.,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:739
PWs.1, 2 and 4 neither stated about the presence of this
appellant on the scene of occurrence nor the assault made by
him. Further, on perusal of the wound certificate of PW.5 i.e.,
Ex.P9, there is no mention of any injury found on the person of
the accused due to the assault made by hand. In such
circumstances, the prosecution has failed to place any
believable evidence in respect of the participation of the
appellant in the alleged incident. Therefore, on perusal of the
entire evidence, I am of the view that the learned Sessions
Judge has erred in convicting the appellant for the charges
leveled against her. Hence, the interference is required in the
impugned judgment.
8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(a) The Criminal Appeal No.200006/2022 is
allowed.
(b) The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 19.11.2021 passed in
Sessions Case No.231/2017 by the III Addl.
District and Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi, is
set aside in respect of accused No.5/appellant
herein.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:739
(c) The appellant/accused No.5 is acquitted for
the offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w
149 of IPC.
(d) The bail bond executed by appellant/accused
No.5 shall stands cancelled.
(e) The fine amount, if any, deposited by
appellant/accused No.5 shall be refunded to
her on due identification.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
MSR
CT: PS
