Karnataka High Court

Havanur Althaf S/O Abdul Sab vs State Of Karnataka on 28 January, 2025

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                           -1-
                                                                      NC: 2025:KHC-D:1655
                                                                CRL.A No. 100152 of 2017
                                                            C/W CRL.A No. 100225 of 2017
                                                                CRL.A No. 100232 of 2017


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                                     DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
                                                       BEFORE
                                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100152 OF 2017 (C)
                                                       C/W
                                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100225 OF 2017
                                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100232 OF 2017

                            IN CRL.A.NO. 100152 OF 2017:

                            BETWEEN:

                            1.   SHETTARA UMESHA
                                 S/O CHANDRAPPA,
                                 AGED ABOUT: 31 YEARS,
                                 OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                                 R/O: HOLALU VILLAGE,
                                 TALUK: HADAGALI,
                                 DIST: BALLARI.

                            2.   BHARAT S/O ANNADANAPPA,
                                 AGED ABOUT: 25 YEARS,
                                 OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                                 R/O: HOLALU VILLAGE,
                                 TALUK: HADAGALI,
                                 DIST: BALLARI.
BK
MAHENDRAKUMAR


Digitally signed by B K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
                            3.   CHOURADAVARA MANJU
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.02.07 11:09:10
+0530
                                 S/O BASAPPA,
                                 AGED ABOUT: 37 YEARS,
                                 OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                                 R/O: HOLALU VILLAGE,
                                 TALUK: HADAGALI,
                                 DIST: BALLARI.

                            4.   BASAVANNEPPA S/O BASAPPA,
                                 AGED ABOUT: 31 YEARS,
                                 OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                                 R/O: HOLALU VILLAGE,
                                 TALUK: HADAGALI,
                                 DIST: BALLARI.
                              -2-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC-D:1655
                                     CRL.A No. 100152 of 2017
                                 C/W CRL.A No. 100225 of 2017
                                     CRL.A No. 100232 of 2017



5.   SANTOSH BALIGARA
     S/O NAGAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT: 27 YEARS,
     OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O: HOLALU VILLAGE,
     TALUK: HADAGALI,
     DIST: BALLARI.

6.   GUJJAGATTI NAGARAJA
     S/O CHANDRE GOUDA,
     AGED ABOUT: 27 YEARS,
     OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O: HOLALU VILLAGE,
     TALUK: HADAGALI,
     DIST: BALLARI.

7.   KODABALA RAVI
     S/O LATE NINGAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS,
     OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O: HOLALU VILLAGE,
     TALUK: HADAGALI,
     DIST: BALLARI.
                                                ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
HUVINAHADAGALI POLICE STATION,
DIST: BALLARI,
REPRESENTED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
AT: DHARWAD.
                                               ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT DATED 13.04.2017 AND SENTENCE DATED 18.04.2017
IN SESSIONS CASE NO.5065 OF 2015 PASSED BY THE III ADDL.
                                -3-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC-D:1655
                                    CRL.A No. 100152 of 2017
                                C/W CRL.A No. 100225 of 2017
                                    CRL.A No. 100232 of 2017


DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BALLARI (SITTING AT
HOSAPETE) CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS / ACCUSED FOR
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 147, 323, 353, 504, 506, 307 READ WITH
SEC.149 OF IPC AND SENTENCED TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT
FOR A PERIOD OF 2 MONTHS, 4 MONTHS , 2MONTHS, 2 MONTHS,
6 MONTHS RESPECTIVELY AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.1000/- EACH
AND IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO FURTHER IMPRISONMENT FOR 10
DAYS, AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.4, 6 TO 10
AND 13 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

IN CRL.A.NO. 100225 OF 2017:

BETWEEN:

1.    MALLAJJI MANJUNATH
      S/O MALLAJJI EERANNA,
      AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
      R/O: HOLALU VILLAGE,
      TALUK: HADAGALI,
      DIST: BALLARI.

2.    KARE GOUDA @ GUDAGURU KARE GOUDAR
      S/O CHANDRASHEKARAPPA,
      AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
      R/O: MYLAR VILLAGE,
      TALUK: HADAGALI,
      DIST: BALLARI.

3.    BENKALI MANJAPPA
      S/O ADIVEPPA,
      AGED ABOUT: 33 YEARS,
      OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: HOLALU VILLAGE,
      TALUK: HADAGALI,
      DIST: BALLARI.

4.    MUDUGERI NINGAPPA
      S/O LATE DODDALAKKAPPA,
      AGED ABOUT: 36 YEARS,
      OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: HOLALU VILLAGE,
      TALUK: HADAGALI,
      DIST: BALLARI.
                             -4-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC-D:1655
                                 CRL.A No. 100152 of 2017
                             C/W CRL.A No. 100225 of 2017
                                 CRL.A No. 100232 of 2017



5.     BARI BASAVARAJ S/O UJJAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT: 50 YEARS,
       OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O: HOLALU VILLAGE,
       TALUK: HADAGALI,
       DIST: BALLARI.

6.     BARI MAHESH S/O BASAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT: 30 YEARS,
       OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O: HOLALU VILLAGE,
       TALUK: HADAGALI,
       DIST: BALLARI.
                                             ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
HUVINAHADAGALI POLICE STATION,
DIST: BALLARI, REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
AT: DHARWAD.
                                            ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2)
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.4.2017 AND SENTENCE DATED
18.4.2017 IN SESSIONS CASE NO.5065 OF 2015 PASSED BY THE III
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BALLARI (SITTING AT
HOSAPETE) CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 147,323, 353, 504, 506, 307 READ WITH
SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SENTENCED TO UNDERGO
IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 2 MONTHS, 4 MONTHS, 2
MONTHS, 2 MONTHS, 6 MONTHS RESPECTIVELY AND TO PAY
FINE OF RS.1000/- EACH AND IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO
FURTHER IMPRISONMENT FOR 10 DAYS AND ACQUIT THE
                                -5-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC-D:1655
                                    CRL.A No. 100152 of 2017
                                C/W CRL.A No. 100225 of 2017
                                    CRL.A No. 100232 of 2017


APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3, 5, 11, 12 BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL TO MEET ENDS OF JUSTICE.

IN CRL.A. NO.100232 OF 2017:

BETWEEN:

HAVANUR ALTHAF S/O ABDUL SAB,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O: KALEGERI ONNE, HAVANUR VILLAGE,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
                                                ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD,
THROUGH HUVINAHADAGALI POLICE STATION,
BALLARI.
                                              ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2)
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SECURE THE RECORDS AND TO ALLOW
THE APPEAL AND INTURN SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION DATED 13.04.2017 AND ORDER SENTENCE DATED
18.04.2017 PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO.5065 OF 2017 BY III
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BALLARI (SITTING AT
HOSAPETE) AND TO ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.14
FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 147, 307, 323,
353, 504 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC.
      THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                                  -6-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC-D:1655
                                      CRL.A No. 100152 of 2017
                                  C/W CRL.A No. 100225 of 2017
                                      CRL.A No. 100232 of 2017


                           ORAL JUDGMENT

1. These appeals under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) have been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, whereby the accused have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 307, 323, 353, 504, and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine.

2. The prosecution alleged that the accused were engaged in the illegal transportation of sand on the Mylara-Guttala road from the banks of the Tungabhadra River without paying the requisite royalty to the Government. Consequently, the Government established a check post near the land of one Honnappa of Huliyal village, where Home Guards CW2 (Kotresh) and CW3 (Mallanna) were deployed from 9:00 a.m. on 18.05.2014 to 9:00 a.m. on 19.05.2014.

3. On 19.05.2014, at approximately 1:00 a.m., while the Home Guards were inspecting lorries, accused Nos. 1 to 14 allegedly formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of picking a quarrel. They arrived at the check post on motorcycles and abused the Home Guards in indecent language to insult and provoke them into breaching the peace. They also allegedly threatened the Home Guards with dire consequences. The situation was pacified by police personnel CW7 (Mallappa) and CW9 (Kotresh).

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1655

4. Later, at approximately 8:45 a.m., the accused allegedly engaged in another altercation with the Home Guards while they were verifying lorry passes. They allegedly abused them in indecent language, issued threats to their lives, and deterred them from performing their official duties. Accused No.1 is alleged to have assaulted CW2 by striking him on the abdomen and attempting to murder him by strangulation. Accused Nos. 2 and 11 allegedly assaulted CW3 (Mallanna). The complainant, along with CWs.10 to 12, intervened and pacified the altercation. Before leaving the scene, the accused allegedly threatened the police and Home Guards with dire consequences should they continue inspecting lorry passes and obstructing the illegal transportation of sand.

5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16 and produced documentary evidence marked as Exhibits P1 to P18.

6. Upon analyzing the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the injured witnesses, PWs.3 and 4, had turned hostile. Except for omnibus and general allegations, there was no specific overt act attributed to any of the accused regarding how and in what manner they obstructed the public servants from discharging their official

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1655

duties. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court solely based on omnibus and general allegations is not legally sustainable.

8. In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State argued that Ex.P15 (wound certificate) clearly established that the accused assaulted PW3 with an intention to kill. Furthermore, all the accused obstructed public servants from discharging their duties, as corroborated by the testimony of PWs.6, 7, and 9, who were eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The Trial Court, after a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly passed the impugned judgment, which does not warrant interference.

9. After considering the arguments of both parties and perusing the evidence on record, the primary issue for determination is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is legally sustainable.

10. PWs.3 and 4, who were serving as Home Guards on the date of the alleged incident, were the injured witnesses. However, during their examination-in-chief, they denied being assaulted by the accused. They turned hostile, and nothing was elicited during their cross-examination to substantiate the allegations against the accused. They also denied affixing their signatures on the spot mahazar (Ex.P1).

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1655

11. The prosecution alleged that Accused No.1 assaulted PW3 (Kotresh) by striking him on the abdomen and attempted to murder him by strangulation. However, PW3 turned hostile. Furthermore, the wound certificate (Ex.P15) indicates that the injury sustained by PW3 was simple in nature, and no weapon was used for the alleged assault. In the absence of substantive evidence to establish that Accused No.1 assaulted PW3 with an intention to commit murder, the conviction under Section 307 of IPC is not legally sustainable.

12. PW8, the Unit Officer of the Home Guards, confirmed that PW3 was serving as a Home Guard and was posted to the Mylara check post from 01.05.2014 to 30.05.2014. However, PW8 is not an eyewitness to the incident, and his testimony holds no evidentiary relevance.

13. The official witnesses, PWs.6, 7, and 9, who were police constables, stated that they witnessed the incident and supported the prosecution's case to the extent that the accused obstructed PWs.3 and 4 from discharging their official duties. However, these witnesses failed to specify the overt acts committed by each accused, particularly how and in what manner they obstructed the Home Guards. Therefore, convicting the accused under Sections 143, 147, 323, 353, 504, and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, based solely on omnibus and general allegations, is legally unsustainable.

14. In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond a

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1655

reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused are entitled to acquittal of all charges leveled against them. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) Criminal appeals are allowed.

ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of conviction dated 13.4.2017 and sentence dated 18.4.2017 passed in Sessions Case No.5065/2015 by the learned III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, is hereby set aside, and the accused are acquitted of the aforesaid offences.