Karnataka High Court
Renukawwa W/O Karabasappa Mulagunda vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:557
CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100161 OF 2018
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
RENUKAWWA W/O. KARABASAPPA MULAGUNDA,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GUDDADAHOSAHALLI,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY PSI HAMSABHAVI PS,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
Digitally signed
by ...RESPONDENT
SHAKAMBARI (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR RESPONDENT)
Location: High THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
Court of SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE
Karnataka, RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2018
Dharwad Bench
PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION
JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN
CRL.APL.NO.41/2014 IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED
23.06.2014 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC,
HIREKERUR IN CRL.CASE.NO.441/2008 IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:557
CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
The petitioner/accused No.2 is before this Court
questioning the judgement of conviction dated 23.06.2014
and order of sentence dated 11.08.2014 passed by the
Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur [for short 'trial Court']
confirmed in Crl.A. No.41/2014 by the II Additional District
and Sessions Judge at Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur) [for
short 'First Appellate Court'] dated 10.08.2018.
2. Parties to this petition are referred as per
their rank before the trial Court for the sake of
convenience.
3. The Police Sub-Inspector of Hamsabhavi
Police Station filed the chargesheet against the accused
persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323,
324, 504 and 506 r/w. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code
[for short 'IPC']. The accused No.1 so arrayed in the
chargesheet was reported to be dead before trial Court
NC: 2025:KHC-D:557
itself. Therefore, case against him stood abated. The case
against accused No.2, who is the petitioner now is
proceeded.
The brief and relevant facts as per the FIR are
as under:
4. That one Dundappa S/o. Halappa Mulagund
arrayed as CW1 in the chargesheet lodged the complaint
before the Police alleging, that on 01.09.2008 at about
3:00 pm in RS No.132 of Budhihal village within the limits
of Hamsabhavi Police Station, the accused named in the
chargesheet with regard to installation of the electricity
board to the bore-well, started quarrelling with the
complainant, abused him in a filthy language and accused
No.1 assaulted the complainant with hands and also
assaulted him with a sickle on the back portion of his
head, the right hand and caused the simple injuries to
CW1. At that time, CW4 intervened to pacify the galata, at
that time, the accused No.1 assaulted CW4 with a stick on
his back portion of his head and caused him simple
NC: 2025:KHC-D:557
injuries. In furtherance of common intention these accused
persons also abused the complainant and CW4 in a filthy
language and gave a threat of life with dire consequences
of life. With these allegations, a Complaint came to be filed
which was registered by the Police for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w.
Section 34 of IPC. The Police after investigation, filed the
chargesheet against the accused persons for the aforesaid
offences.
5. Before the trial Court, the accused
appeared and copies of the Police papers were furnished to
the accused persons as contemplated under Section 207 of
IPC. After hearing both sides, the charges against the
accused persons were framed for the offences punishable
under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w. Section 34 of
IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:557
6. When the trial commenced, accused No.1
was reported to be dead and a case against him stood
abated as stated above, so also complainant/ CW1 died.
7. Before the trial Court, to prove the guilt of
the accused, prosecution in all examined 9 witnesses from
PW1 to PW9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and MO.1
and 2 closed the prosecution witnesses.
8. Thereafter, accused No.2-the present
petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C so
as to enable her to answer the incriminating circumstances
appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. She denied
her complicity in the crime and did not choose to lead any
defence evidence on her behalf.
9. The learned trial Court on hearing the
arguments and assessing the evidence, found the present
petitioner/accused guilty of committing the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w.
Section 34 of IPC and sentenced her as under:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:557
"The accused shall under go simple
imprisonment for the period of 1 year and
shall pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of
payment of said fine she shall under go
simple imprisonment for 2 months for
offences punishable under section 324 R/w
34 of IPC.
The accused shall under go simple
imprisonment for the period of 1 years and
shall pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of
payment of said fine she shall under go
simple imprisonment for 2 months for
offences punishable under section 504 R/w
34 IPC.
The accused shall under go simple
imprisonment for the period of 1 years and
shall pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of
payment of said fine she shall under go
simple imprisonment for 2 months for
offences punishable under section 506 R/w
34 IPC.
The substantial imprisonment shall
run concurrently."
10. This judgement of conviction and order of
sentence was questioned by the present petitioner before
the First Appellate Court by filing the Crl.A. No.41/2014.
The First Appellate Court on hearing the arguments and on
evaluation of the evidence, confirmed the judgement of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:557
the trial Court. Now, the present petitioner/accused No.2
is before this Court challenging the impugned judgements
passed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court by filing this Revision Petition.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner
Sri.Avinash Banakar submits that, CW1/complainant who
is stated to have sustained injuries has died. So also,
accused No.1 died during the pendency of the case before
the trial Court. He submits that the prosecution much rely
upon the evidence of PW1-the another injured arrayed as
CW4. According to the statement of PW1, the said incident
has taken place at Umamaheshwari Temple, whereas the
Panchanama, Complaint and as well as the other
prosecution papers do reveal that the incident has taken
place in RS No.132 of Budhihal village. According to him,
there is, change in the scene of occurrence by this PW1.
Further, he submits that except the evidence of PW1, the
other so called eye-witnesses were examined by the
prosecution have turned hostile. In the absence of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:557
inconsistent evidence of PW1, he would submit that, the
prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He would submit
that in a criminal cases, the prosecution is under the
obligation to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt. Each chain of circumstances have to be
brought on record so as to connect the accused to the
crime. He submits that the trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court have committed a great illegality in
coming to the conclusion that the accused No.2 is
responsible in the commission of the crime. He submits
that as per the grounds made out in the revision as well as
the defence set out by the accused person before the trial
Court, the accused is entitled for acquittal. He submits
that the Revision Petition filed by the accused to be
allowed and impugned judgements are be set aside.
12. As against these submissions, Sri.Praveen
K.Uppar, the learned Additional Government Advocate
submits that though, CW1 is dead during the pendency of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:557
the criminal case, PW1-Sharanappa S/o. Dundappa
Mulagund arrayed as CW4 was an eye-witness to the
incident. According to his submission, the evidence of an
injured witness plays an important role in a case of
present nature. When he has come before the trial Court
and deposed about the clear assault on him by the present
petitioner/accused, it proves that the accused/petitioner is
guilty of the offence alleged. Merely because, certain
change in the scene of offence is not a ground to
disbelieve the evidence of PW1. According to his
submission, the Investigation Officer has supported the
case of the prosecution and CW1/injured also supports the
case of prosecution. Therefore, he submits not to interfere
with the judgements of the trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court and therefore, he submits to dismiss this
Revision Petition.
13. I have given my anxious consideration to
the arguments of both sides and meticulously perused the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:557
records. The only point that would arise for my
consideration is,
Whether the Revision Petitioner has
made out any acceptable grounds so as to
set aside the impugned judgement of the
trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court
as it suffers from infirmity and illegality?
14. My answer to the above point is in the
affirmative for the following reasons:
As per the case of the prosecution, the incident has
taken place at RS No.132 of Budhihal village within the
jurisdiction of Hamsabhavi Police Station. Ex.P.1-the
Panchanama at para No.3 shows that the said incident has
taken place in RS No.132 of Budhihal village belongs to
one Dundappa S/o. Halappa Mulagund. Whereas PW1
being the so called injured states in para No.3 of the
examination and, in his statement that, the said incident
has taken place at Umamaheshwari Temple. Therefore,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:557
there is a complete change of scene of offence by the
PW1. According to him, on the date of incident itself, at
Ranebennur Government Hospital the Police recorded his
statement. He could not say the time of recording his
statement by the Police.
15. PW.1 being the injured though states in his
examination-in-chief that before the said assault on him,
the quarrel took place between him and complainant-CW1,
he states that, on 01.09.2008 at about 3:00 pm, when he
went to show the electricity board, at that time accused
No.2 had broken the bore pipe and it was informed that, it
will be repaired and because of this, there was some
quarrel. Accused No.1 brought a sickle and assaulted CW1.
He went to rescue CW1, at that time he was assaulted. He
says that the accused No.2-the present petitioner by using
the stick-MO.2 assaulted him. He identified both the sickle
and stick as MOs.1 and 2. Further, he states that he has
taken treatment at Government Hospital, Ranebennur. He
has been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence. He
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:557
states that, his father as well as the father of accused
No.2, are brothers interse. There was a partition about 18
years back between them. He further states that, there
were two bore-wells situated in the landed properties and
both are together. He further states that, there was an
agreement between them to partition of the said bore-well
water equally. He further states that, there was a growing
crop at the time of incident in the said landed properties.
When he went to the landed properties, it was about 2:30
pm on that date. Further, he states that, when they were
going to the scene of offence along with the electricity
board, they wanted to bring the stone and grass also.
Even they carried the grass with them. He cannot say that
from what distance he has seen the accused persons
coming towards the scene of offence. He further states
that, because of the information furnished with regard to
the repairing of the pipe, being enraged by the same,
accused committed the said offence. Further, he states
that, accused No.1 assaulted his father and by that time,
they had crossed 2 to 3 acres of land. In the further cross-
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:557
examination he states that, the offence has taken place at
Umamaheshwari Temple, which is altogether different
from the place which is stated in the complaint.
16. On scrupulous reading of the evidence of
PW1, we do not find such contents in the complaint filed
by his father so also his own statement. Altogether,
difference in consistent evidence has been spoken to by
this PW1 with regard to the incident. Even he states that
he cannot say that, on which part of his body accused
assaulted him with sickle. Even he does not remember
that, when he went to the Hospital from the village. He
states that accused-Renukawwa has assaulted him with
stick. But, there is no proper evidence spoken to by him
that, who assaulted whom. He further states that, another
criminal case is pending against him wherein the accused
is the complainant. It was a case of a robbery. He denied a
suggestion made to him that, his father has sustained
injuries. As stated supra, his evidence is quite against the
contents of the complaint and his statement before the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:557
Police. If such an evidence is placed on record by the
PW.1, it really requires corroboration.
17. PW2-Shanmukhappa Bharamagoudra is the
Pancha of the scene of offence. According to him, he was
called by the Police to the scene of offence and in his
presence, the Panchanama was prepared and got his
signatures on Ex.P.1 and 2. He identified MOs.1 and 2. It
has come in the evidence of PW1 that, after the incident,
the sickle was taken to his house and PW2 states that the
sickle was seized at that time preparation of Panchanama.
When sickle was taken to the house, who has produced
the same before the Police is not explained either by PW1
or by PW2 or by the Investigating Officers. Therefore, the
very seizure of MO.1 is doubtful in this case. With regard
to the presence of PW2 at the scene of offence at the time
of preparing the Panchanama, his evidence is accepted.
18. PW3-Khuberappa S/o. Shivappa Honimath
is the another Pancha of Ex.P.1. PW4-Hanamantappa S/o.
Halappa Chakrasali is not an eye-witness to the said
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:557
incident. PW.5-Marakappa S/o. Halappa Chakrasali is also
not an eye-witness to the said incident. All these three
witnesses have turned hostile, nothing worth is elicited by
the prosecution by peculiar circumstances in the cross-
examination. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 to PW5
would become inconsequential to the case of the
prosecution and there evidence cannot be accepted.
19. PW.6-Dr.Nagaraj examined the injured in
the Hospital and issued the Wound Certificate. According
to him, the injuries sustained by CW.1 and CW.4 were
simple in nature. It is the defence of the accused persons
that because of cutting of the chain and by falling of the
same, the injuries sustained by CW.1 and CW.4 may be
possible and for this PW.6 has given a positive answer.
When CW.4-PW.1's evidence is full of inconsistencies and
discrepancies, the possibility of sustaining injuries as
opined by the Doctor cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the
evidence of the Doctor can be accepted to the extent of
issuing the wound certificates only.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:557
20. PW.7-Ganesh Abbigeri, a Head Constable of
Hamsabhavi Police Station has visited the Hospital to
record the statement of the Complainant. Based upon the
statement recorded, Criminal case was registered. To the
extent of recording the statement of the Complainant, his
evidence is accepted.
21. PW.8-Ramesh Ambiger is a Head Constable
of Hamsabhavi Police Station at the relevant time and he
enquired CW.1 and recorded his statement as per Ex.P.6
and set the Criminal Law in motion. To that extent the
evidence of PW.8 is be accepted.
22. PW.10-Chandrappa Naduvinamani, a Head
Constable of Hamsabhavi Police Station at the relevant
time. He has appeared before the trial Court and deposed
about registering the Crime in Crime No.109/2008 this fact
is not disputed by the defence. Soalso the scene of
offence and preparing the Panchanama as per Ex.P.1. To
that extent, evidence of PW.10 is accepted. He has been
thoroughly cross-examined.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:557
23. On scrupulous reading of the entire oral
and documentary evidence, I find that, except self serving
evidence of PW.1, the interested witness, there is no other
corroborative evidence spoken to by any of the witnesses
so as to come to a conclusion that accused No.2 i.e.,
present petitioner has really assaulted this PW1. There is
no proper connecting evidence to connect the present
petitioner in the commission of crime. The prosecution
case suffers from material particulars. The evidence of
PW.1 is full of inconsistencies and discrepancies. There is a
complete change of scene of offence by PW.1 with that of
the evidence of PW.10. More over, based upon the
evidence of Police officers, in a case of present nature it
cannot be stated that, the prosecution has proved its case
beyond all reasonable doubt. As the prosecution has not
proved it's case with legal and oral evidence, the learned
trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have
committed illegality in believing the evidence of PW.1
alone. Therefore, a doubt arises in the case of prosecution.
More so, the complainant's family and the accused family
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:557
are close relatives and there are several criminal cases
registered between them. Even PW.1 states that, he is
attending the Criminal Courts for the alleged offence of
robbery. A false filing of a case against the accused in view
of the animosity and rivalry between them cannot be ruled
out. Thus, the petitioner/ accused has made out grounds
to allow this Revision Petition and to set aside the
impugned judgments. Accordingly, point for consideration
is answered in favour of the petitioner. Resultantly, I pass
the following:
ORDER
i) The Revision Petition is allowed.
ii) The judgement of conviction dated
23.06.2014 and order of sentence
dated 11.08.2014, passed in CC
No.441/2008 by the Civil Judge and
JMFC, Hirekerur, confirmed in Crl.A
No.41/2014 dated 10.08.2018 by the
II Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur)
are hereby set aside.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:557
iii) Consequentially, the petitioner-
accused is acquitted of the charges
under Sections 323, 324, 504 and
506 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
iv) Her bail bond stands cancelled and he
is set at liberty.
v) Fine amount if paid, be returned to
the petitioner/ accused by the
learned trial Court direction.
vi) Send back the trial Court records
along with a copy of this judgment
forthwith.
vii) Registry is directed to send the
operative portion of this judgment to
the First Appellate Court and Trial
Court through mail forthwith.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
PJ/ct-an
