Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Maruti Gangappa Chigappanavar Age 46 ... on 15 January, 2025
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:547
CRL.RP No. 100492 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100492 OF 2022
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, MUNDGOD
POLICE STATION,
UTTARA KANNADA,
THROUGH ADDL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
AND:
1. MARUTI GANGAPPA CHIGAPPANAVAR
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Digitally
signed by
MANJANNA
RO. ANDALAGI, TQ. MUNDGOD.
MANJANNA E
E Date:
2025.01.21
14:32:33
+0530
2. TAMMANNA LAXMAN BENDIGERI
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
RO. ANDALAGI, TQ. MUNDGOD.
3. RAMMANNA GANGAPPA CHIGAPPANAVAR
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
RO. ANDALAGI, TQ. MUNDGOD.
4. VITTAL SHIVAJI CHIGAPPANAVAR
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
RO. ANDALAGI, TQ. MUNDGOD.
5. ARJUN GANAPATI BENDIGETI
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
RO. ANDALAGI, TQ. MUNDGOD.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:547
CRL.RP No. 100492 of 2022
6. DHARMANNA MARIYAPPA SITAMMANAVAR
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
RO. ANDALAGI, TQ. MUNDGOD.
7. LAVA RAMANNA CHIGAPPANAVAR
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
RO. ANDALAGI, TQ. MUNDGOD.
8. ASHOK YALLAPPA SAMBAJI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
RO. ANDALAGI, TQ. MUNDGOD.
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R8 (ABSENT)]
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM LOWER APPELLATE
COURT NAMELY 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, U.K.
KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5019/2019
AND ALSO FROM SENIOR JMFC MUNDGOD IN CC NO.103/2014
DATED 27.03.2019 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 30.09.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSION JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.5019/2019 AND IN CC NO. 103/2014 DATED 27.03.2019
PASSED BY THE SENIOR JMFC, MUNDAGOD AND CONVICT THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 143, 147,
323, 353, 332, 224, 427 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by State aggrieved
by judgment dated 30.09.2021 passed by 1st Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, U.K., Karwar sitting at Sirsi in Criminal Appeal
no.5019/2019 and judgment dated 27.03.2019 in
CC.no.103/2014 by Senior JMFC., Mundgod.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:547
2. Heard Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for
petitioner.
3. Brief facts as stated are, complaint was filed by
Basavaraj Maruti Naik, Forest Guard, Mundgod Division,
Kalkeri, alleging that at 8:00 pm on 24.03.2013, information
was received about unknown person roaming with rifle for
hunting, in F.Sy.no.20 of Andalagi Forest. On reaching spot
with Venkatesh Karadgi, Forest Guard and Banalli, they found a
person carrying rifle in his hand. On enquiry, he revealed his
name was Ramanna Gangappa Chigappanavar. While bringing
him back to their office for further action, when they reached
village, said Ramanna attempted to escape. He called other
accused for help, who formed unlawful assembly and assaulted
complainant, though he was in his uniform and while on duty.
They assaulted with hands inflicting injuries, tore his uniform
and damaged his motorcycle. It was alleged that accused had
thereby assisted accused to escape and thereby committed
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 353, 332,
224, 427 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
('IPC', for short). Same was registered as Crime no.41/2013.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:547
4. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in
CC.no.103/2014. Charges were framed. On denial, trial was
held. While, prosecution examined 15 witnesses and marked
Exs.P1 to P22 and MOs.1 and 2. On other hand, accused no.3
was examined as DW.1 and an independent witness examined
as DW.2. But, without proper appreciation, trial Court acquitted
accused no.1 to 8 of all charges. Aggrieved, Criminal Appeal
no.501/2019 was filed. But same was dismissed, leading to this
petition.
5. It was submitted, complainant was assaulted while
he was discharging official duty. It was submitted, accused no.1
was intercepted in forest area while he was carrying rifle for
hunting. While he was being taken to office for further action,
accused no.1 with help of other accused escaped and in
process, accused had inflicted injuries and caused damage to
his motorcycle. It was submitted, though PWs.2, 3 and 5 -
pancha witnesses, PWs.6, 7 and 11 - eye-witnesses, did not
support prosecution; PW.1 - complainant, PW.4 - pancha
witness, PWs.8 to 10 - eye-witnesses and other official
witnesses supported prosecution. Deposition of said witnesses
would duly establish charges. However, without proper
NC: 2025:KHC-D:547
consideration, both Courts acquitted accused. It was submitted,
oral evidence was corroborated by documentary evidence
Medical Examination Report - Ex.P13 and MOs.1 and 2 which
had blood stains.
6. It was submitted, PW.1 - complainant had duly
deposed in terms of complaint. His deposition was corroborated
by PW.4 - pancha-witness to seizure mahazar, who identified
torn uniform and damaged motorcycle. Likewise, PWs.8 to 10
eye-witnesses also duly supported prosecution case. Though
nothing material was elicited from them during cross-
examination so as to discredit their deposition, trial Court as
well as Appellate Court acquitted accused.
7. It was submitted, though statements were recorded
under Section 313 of CrPC, accused failed to offer any
satisfactory explanation about incriminating material.
8. It was submitted, reason assigned by Appellate
Court for discarding deposition of PWs.11, 12, 14 and 15 was
on ground that incident occurred near house of V.S. Patil of
Andalagi village, but PW.12 was stated to be present at spot
with pancha-witnesses. Even Appellate Court failed to consider
NC: 2025:KHC-D:547
Wound Certificate and evidence of doctor about injuries
sustained by complainant - PW.1. Hence sought interference by
allowing revision.
9. None appears for respondents - accused.
10. Perused impugned judgment by trial as well as
Appellate Courts and records.
11. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 read with Section 401 of CrPC, against concurrent findings
of acquittal of respondents - accused for offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 323, 353, 332, 224, 427 read with
149 of IPC.
12. Case of prosecution as per complaint / charge-sheet
was that on 24.03.2013, when complainant along with other
forest guard went to Kalkeri forest on receipt of information
about illegal hunting, they found accused no.1 walking in
F.Sy.no.20 carrying a rifle with bullets. And when he was being
brought back to office for further action, accused no.1 called for
help, when they were in front of MLAs house and that other
accused gathered and assaulted complainant inflicted injuries
on him, tore his uniform and damaged his motorcycle, while
NC: 2025:KHC-D:547
complainant was performing his duty and was wearing uniform
thereby committed offences as alleged.
13. Before trial Court, only complainant - PW.1,
pancha-witness - PW.4 and eye-witnesses/forest guards -
PWs.8 to 10 supported prosecution case, while, PWs.2 and 3 -
pancha-witnesses and PWs.5 to 7 - eye-witnesses turned
hostile.
14. While passing judgment, trial Court noted
statement of PW.1 that next day after incident, he filed police
complaint as suggested by his official superior. It observed spot
panchanama was conducted between 10:15 to 11:00 a.m. on
26.03.2013, while panchanama for seizure of MOs was
conducted on 25.03.2013 between 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. It also
observed that PWs.8 to 10 were Forest Guards who had
accompanied complainant. And PW-11 - Doctor had stated
nature of injuries suffered by complainant as 'simple'. Trial
Court further noted that accused had examined two persons as
defence witnesses. Accused no.3 was examined as DW.1. He
deposed that on 24.03.2013 at 8:00 p.m., while he was going
towards his lands, he was beaten up by forest guards by
NC: 2025:KHC-D:547
alleging that he was cutting forest trees. Due to which he
sustained injuries for which he received treatment as in-patient
for three days. It also referred to his further statement that
Sri V.S. Patil - MLA had thereafter intervened and got matter
settled by directing Forest Guards to pay Rs.5,000/- to accused
no.1 for causing grievous injuries. He further stated that
instead of complying, false complaint was filed. Trial Court
observed that deposition of DW-2 was similar and corroborated
DW-1.
15. Reason assigned by trial Court for acquittal was
that, complainant - PW.1 deposed about accused causing
damage to head-light dome and petrol tank of his motorcycle,
whereas during cross-examination, suggestions were made
about damage being caused to head-light, mud-guard, seat
cover and tail-lamp assembly etc as well. It also noted that
PW.1 stated that seizure panchanama for recovery of his
uniform was conducted between 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. on
25.03.2013, which was noted by it to be contradicting records
and giving rise to reasonable doubt. It further observed, due to
PWs.2 and 3 turning hostile, Ex.P3 panchanama could not be
relied as evidence. It further observed, even PW.4 admitted he
NC: 2025:KHC-D:547
was unaware of contents of Ex.P3, therefore, prosecution had
failed to prove Ex.P3.
16. It further observed, unlike PW.1 who deposed about
damage caused to dome and tank of motorcycle, PWs.8 to 10
had failed to mention particulars, which also gave rise to doubt.
It thereafter referred to statement of PW.11 - medical officer
that complainant had come to him at 4:00 p.m. on 25.03.2013,
for treatment of injuries sustained in assault by accused on
24.03.2013 at 10:30 p.m., and had admitted that injuries
noted by him in Ex.P13 could be caused due to fall. It lastly
noted there was delay in filing of complaint, substantiating
reasonable doubt about commission of offence by accused. On
said grounds, it acquitted accused.
17. In appeal, Appellate Court on independent re-
assessment concurred with findings by assigning detailed
reasons. Offences alleged against accused are mainly unlawful
assembly, rioting, voluntarily causing hurt, obstructing public
servant from performing his duty and escaping from
apprehension.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:547
18. As noted above, there is delay in filing complaint.
Incident allegedly occurred at 10:00 pm on 24.03.2013. But
Complaint is filed at 7:30 p.m., on 25.03.2013. However, as
per Complainant - PW.1 himself, Ex.P3 was drawn on between
3:00 and 4:00 p.m. on 25.03.2013, which would be even prior
to filing of complaint. Interestingly, PW.11 - medical officer,
deposed that he examined complainant for injuries at 4:00
p.m. on 25.03.2013, which would contradict prosecution case.
Moreover, in furtherance of suggesting to PW.1 that injuries
were caused by his falling down, it is elicited from PW.11 that
injuries noted in Ex.P13 could be caused by falling down.
19. Further, while, PWs.2 and 3 - pancha witnesses
turned hostile, remaining pancha-witness examined - PW.4
admitted, he was unaware of contents of Ex.P3 and that it he
was shown uniform in Police Station. Apart from above, there
are contradictions noted about damages caused to motorcycle
and prosecution has also failed to evaluate damage, which
would be required to establish offence under Section 427 of
IPC.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:547
20. Though Hon'ble Supreme Court has in case of Tahir
v. State (Delhi), reported in (1996) 3 SCC 338, held order
of conviction could be based only on statement of official
witnesses, if it is consistent and found to be cogent, reliable
and credible, in instant case, trial Court has noted various
inconsistencies between evidence of PW.1 and PWs.8 to 10.
Therefore, both Courts would be justified in extending benefit
of doubt and acquitting accused.
21. Consequently, there would be no scope for
interference. Hence following:
ORDER
Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
EM/GRD
