Karnataka High Court
H.S. Basavarajappa vs Smt. A.B. Asha on 6 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5709
CRL.A No. 212 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2015 (A)
BETWEEN:
H.S. BASAVARAJAPPA
S/O LATE SHIVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHIRAYU,
MANGOTE VILLAGE,
BHADRAVATHI-577 301.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. A.B. ASHA
W/O. H.S. BASAVARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA RESIDING AT MUNGOTE VILLAGE,
Location: HIGH BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
COURT OF BHADRAVATHI DISTRICT-577 301.
KARNATAKA
2. SHIVARAJ
S/O GUDDADAMALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MUNGOTE VILLAGE,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
BHADRAVATHI DISTRICT-577 301.
3. S. G. BASAVARAJAPPA
S/O GUDDADAMALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MUNGOTE VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5709
CRL.A No. 212 of 2015
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
BHADRAVATHI DISTRICT-577 301.
4. M.Y. BASAVARAJAPPA
S/O GUDDADAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MUNGOTE VILLAGE,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
BHADRAVATHI DISTRICT-577 301.
5. M.Y. MALLESHAPPA
S/O YAGATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MUNGOTE VILLAGE,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
BHADRAVATHI DISTRICT-577 301.
6. H. BASAPPA
S/O CHANNABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MUNGOTE VILLAGE,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
BHADRAVATHI DISTRICT-577 301.
7. H.NANJAPPA
S/O SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MUNGOTE VILLAGE,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
BHADRAVATHI DISTRICT-577 301.
8. MANJUNATHA
S/O SHANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ARIKERI VILLAGE,
HONNALI TALUK-577 217.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:4.11.14, PASSED BY THE I
ADDLL.CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, IN
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:5709
CRL.A No. 212 of 2015
C.C.NO.313/2005 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420,465,468,471,114, 511,342,415
R/W SEC.149 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is sought by the complainant/victim against
the judgment of acquittal dated 14.11.2014 passed in
C.C.No.313/2005 by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC,
Badravathi, whereby the Learned Magistrate acquitted the
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465,
468, 471, 511, 342, 415 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
2. The abridged facts of the case are that:
The appellant herein has lodged a private complaint
under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the respondents for the
offences punishable under Section 420, 465,468,471,114 r/w
Section 149 of IPC. The learned Magistrate referred the matter
to Balehonnur Police as provided under Section 156(3) of Code
of Criminal Procedure for investigation. The police after farce of
an enquiry filed "B" report before the learned Magistrate. The
complainant has filed his objection (protest petition) against
NC: 2025:KHC:5709
the 'B' report filed by the Police. The learned Magistrate
recorded the sworn statement of complainant and other two
witnesses and took cognizance of the offences punishable under
Section 420, 456, 468, 471, 114 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. The case of the appellant before the learned
Magistrate is that the accused No.1 is his wife and accused
No.2 is his mother, the accused No.3 is his father-in-law and
accused Nos.4 to 10 are friends of accused No.3. The property
bearing Sy.No.22/2, 2 Acres 7 Guntas situated at Mungote
village, Bhadravathi Taluk, Sy.No.8, measuring 37 guntas
situated at Jangamahally, Bhadravathi Taluk. Sy.No.18,
measuring 8 Guntas and Sy.No.86/2, measuring 1 acre, 35
Guntas are ancestral properties of one Late. Shivappa who was
the father of the complainant and he expired in the year 1991.
Upon his demise the complainant became the absolute owner
and was in possession of the properties.
4. On 11.08.1999, the marriage of the complainant was
registered with accused No.1 before the Sub-Registrar and the
complainant was coerced and forced to marry accused No.1
although he was never inclined to marrying her. The
NC: 2025:KHC:5709
complainant was unable to lodge the complaint with the Police
or before the Court since, accused Nos.3, 8 and 9 kept the
complainant under house arrest. In the month of April 2000,
the complainant was wrongfully confined (detained) in
Bangalore for a period of 4 months in an unknown place by
accused No.3 with the support of other accused. Thereafter,
complainant was taken to accused No.1's residence, situated at
Arakeri village, Honnalli Taluk. The complainant escaped and
returned to his native place i.e., Mungote village. However, the
complainant was incessantly harassed collectively by all the
accused. The properties as stated above are in joint possession
of complainant and accused No.2. The complainant doubted
accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 regarding the transactions involving the
properties and he approached the concerned Village Accountant
and obtained RTC extracts and mutation register in the month
of April 2001. Following which he learnt that a partition deed
was executed between them. Thereafter, on 31.05.2001, he
made an application before the Sub-Registrar of Bhadravathi,
seeking certified copy of the partition deed. On 06.06.2001, he
verified the said deed and found that accused Nos.1 to 10 had
forged his signature with an intention to usurp his properties.
NC: 2025:KHC:5709
The income generated from the properties were collectively
enjoyed by accused Nos.1 to 3 without apportioning due share
to the complainant. The accused Nos.4 to 10 voluntarily
supported the criminal act of accused Nos.1 to 3, however, the
complainant repeatedly questioned the said act. The legal right
of the complainant over the properties have been illegally
suspended by accused Nos.1 to 3 by forging complainant's
signature in executing the partition deed by impersonation.
Hence, the complainant has sought for action against the
accused persons before the learned Magistrate, by filing a
private complaint.
5. After taking cognizance of the offences, the learned
Magistrate issued summons to the accused and commenced the
trail. The complainant examined himself as PW.1 and another
witness Sub-Registrar Bhadravathi as PW-2 and marked Ex-P-1
to 15 through PW.1. The respondents have examined DW.1 to
4 and marked Ex.D1 to D3. On assessment of the evidence and
the documents, the learned Magistrate acquitted the
respondents/accused. The said judgment is challenged in this
appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:5709
6. I have heard Sri Umesh Moolimani for Sri S.V.Prakash,
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.B.Deshpande, the
learned counsel for the respondents.
7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the learned Magistrate erred while acquitting
the accused without appreciating the evidence on record in
right perspective. He contended that, PW.1 has categorically
stated in his evidence that the accused Nos.2 to 10 have
solemnized his marriage against his will with accused No.1 and
thereafter, he was forcibly brought to Bengaluru and was
confined in a remote locality. Further, they executed a partition
deed by forging signature of the complainant to usurp his
property. He further contended that, the evidence of PW.1
corroborates with the testimony of PW.2. As such the
complainant has proved his case before the learned Magistrate.
Despite this, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused.
Hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that, there is no such credible evidence placed by
the complainant to prove the charges levelled against the
NC: 2025:KHC:5709
accused. Further there is no document placed by the
complainant to prove that the accused have forged the
signature or thumb impression of the complainant to usurp his
property. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate has
rightly acquitted the accused for the charges levelled against
them.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the respondents the sole point that arise for my consideration
is that:
"Whether the Learned Trial Judge is justified in
acquitting the accused for the offences punishable
under Section 420, 465, 468, 471, 511, 342, 415
R/w Section 149 of IPC and if interference is required
in the impugned judgment?"
10. I have given my circumspect consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both parties
and also have perused the documents produced before me. It
could be gathered from the records, to prove the case of the
complainant he examined himself as PW.1 and the Sub-
Registrar of Bhadravathi was examined as PW.2. On perusal of
the evidence of PW.1, he reiterated the complaint averments in
NC: 2025:KHC:5709
his evidence and deposed that the accused Nos.2 to 10
solemnised his marriage with accused No.1 against his will and
that he was illegally confined in Bangalore and thereafter, his
properties were transferred in favour of the accused by forging
his signature. However, in his cross-examination he has
admitted that, 10 to 12 days prior to the incident a partition
deed was executed between the family. Further the
complainant, without obtaining a divorce decree married the
accused; he harassed her both physically and mentally. To this
effect she lodged a complaint against him and in the said case
the accused was convicted and when he appealed against the
said order, the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court.
Further it is also admitted by him that he failed to produce
documents to prove who forged his signature/thumb
impression. PW.2 the Sub-Registrar also admitted in his cross-
examination that, after verifying the persons appearing before
the Sub-Registrar Office the thumb impression of the person
was affixed on the document and that there was no room for
impersonation and forgery at the Sub-Registrar Office. Further
on perusal of evidence of DW.1 to DW.4 all these witnesses
categorically deposed that there exists a civil Dispute between
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5709
the complainant and the Accused involving property. Further
the complainant admitted to having a prior partition in the
family. Also, the complainant harassed the accused No.1 and
she filed a criminal case against him where he was convicted.
This was also admitted by the complainant in his evidence. In
such circumstances, the evidence of PW.1 remains incredible.
Further as the complainant failed to place any such expert
opinion to prove the forgery committed by the accused, the
learned Magistrate has rightly acquitted the accused for the
charges levelled against them. Against this backdrop, I am of
the considered view that, the learned Magistrate has rightly
appreciated the evidence and materials on record while passing
the judgment and the same does not call for any interference.
Accordingly, I answer the Point No.1 in negative and proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal filed by the complainant is dismissed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
