Karnataka High Court
The State By vs Nagaraja on 7 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5554
CRL.A No. 1482 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1482 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
THE STATE BY
CHINTAMANI RURAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. NAGARAJA
MAYAGAIAH S/O. LATE ESHWARAPPA
VINUTHA
Location: HIGH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. HANUMANTHA
S/O. LATE ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
3. ANJAPPA
S/O. LATE ESHWARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
4. MUNIYAPPA
S/O. RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5554
CRL.A No. 1482 of 2021
5. VENKATESHAPPA
S/O. RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
6. NAGENDRA
S/O. RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
7. ANITHA
W/O. VENKATESHA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
8. CHINNAMMA
W/O. VENKATESHA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 8
R/O. NARAYANAHALLI,
CHINTAMANI TALUK-563 125.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(1)(3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING
TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 01.10.2019
PASSED IN C.C.NO.528/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 143,323,324,504,506 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSOIN, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:5554
CRL.A No. 1482 of 2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though this matter is listed for admission, it is taken up
for final disposal by perusing the evidence and documents
submitted by the Learned HCGP.
2. The State has preferred this appeal against the
judgment of acquittal passed in C.C.No.528/2015 dated
01.10.2019 by the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Chintamani,
wherein the learned Magistrate has acquitted the
accused/respondent for the offences punishable under Sections
143, 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC.
3. The factual matrix of the prosecution case in brief is
that:
The complainant-PW.1 and accused No.1 are the
residents of Narayanahalli Village and there exists some dispute
between them with regard to an adjacent site, in which the
accused was going on with construction. On the said
background, on 02.04.2015, at around 4.30 p.m., all the
accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and tried to
assault PW.1 using deadly weapons. They also administered
NC: 2025:KHC:5554
life-threat to the PW.1 and his family. Accordingly, PW.1 has
lodged a compliant before the Chintamani Rural Police against
the accused for the aforementioned offences as per Ex.P1. On
the strength of Ex.P1, the said police registered the case in
Cr.No.73/2015 for the said offences. Subsequently, the police
have investigated case and laid charge sheet against the
accused before the trial Court for the offences punishable under
Sections143, 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC. .
4. In order to prove the charges leveled against the
accused before the trial Court, the prosecution examined two
witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 so also got marked three
documents as Exs.P1 to P3.
5. After assessment of the oral and documentary
evidence, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused for the
charges leveled against them. The said judgment is challenged
by the State in this appeal.
6. I have heard learned HCGP Sri Rahul Rai.K., for the
appellant and perused the material on record.
NC: 2025:KHC:5554
7. The primary contention of the learned HCGP is that
the judgment challenged under this appeal suffers from
perversity and illegality since the trial Court failed to appreciate
the evidence on record in a right perspective. He would contend
that the trial Court after examining PW.1 and PW.2, i.e., the
complainant and the eye witness, closed the prosecution
evidence by discharging the other witnesses. As such, the
learned Magistrate has committed a grave error and the
impugned judgment calls for interference by this Court.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submission made by the learned HCGP so also the entire
evidence on record produced by the learned HCGP.
9. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1, the
complainant, he has totally turned hostile to the prosecution
case. He denied the contents of his complaint - Ex.P1. Though
the prosecutor cross-examined the complainant at length,
nothing worthwhile has been elicited to prove the prosecution
case. Further, PW.2, the eye-witness to the incident, also
turned hostile to the prosecution case by denying the contents
NC: 2025:KHC:5554
of his 161 statement. The other witnesses cited in the charge
sheet are the mahazar witnesses so also other official
witnesses. Since the material witnesses i.e., PW.1 and PW.2
i.e., the complainant and the eyewitness have turned hostile,
the learned Magistrate has rightly came to a conclusion that
examining of the other witnesses is not called for to prove the
charges leveled against the accused. Accordingly, the learned
Magistrate has closed the prosecution side and acquitted the
accused. In such circumstance, I am of the considered view
that exception cannot be taken for the conclusion arrived by
the learned Magistrate. Hence interference does not call for in
the impugned judgment. Prominently PW.1-complainant himself
given a go bye to the prosecution case by denying the
complaint averments. In that view of the matter, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal filed by the State is dismissed
being devoid of merits.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
VM
