Karnataka High Court
K Hanumanthappa vs Smt. Bhagyamma on 10 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25305
CRL.A No. 248 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 248 OF 2018 (A)
BETWEEN:
K HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O LATE M KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT PRIYADARSHINI ESTATE
NATIONAL PARK ROAD
PILLAGANAHALLI, BENGALURU ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A N RADHA KRISHNA, ADV.)
AND
1. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
W/O NARAYANA REDDY
MAJOR, SY NO.81/4-A
NEAR MEENAKSHI MALL
HULIMAVU BANNERGHATTA
MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076
Digitally signed by
SREEDHARAN
BANGALORE SUSHMA 2 . MUNIYAMMA @ RATHNAMMA
LAKSHMI D/O NARAYANA REDDY
Location: High Court of MAJOR, SY NO.81/4-A
Karnataka NEAR MEENAKSHI MALL
HULIMAVU BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 076
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY UPPARPET POLICE
BENGALURU, REP. BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25305
CRL.A No. 248 of 2018
HC-KAR
(BY SMT. B.PUSHPALATHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R-NO.3
SMT. SUKANYA H.D., ADV. FOR R1 & R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
DATED 05.01.2018 PASSED BY THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN SPL. C. C.
NO.102/2013 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED
NO.1 AND 2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504 AND 506 R/W 34 OF
IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(x)(xi) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 19.06.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH, COMING
ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', BEFORE THE
PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)
This appeal has been filed by the appellant / complainant
against the judgment of acquittal dated 05.01.2018 in
Spl.C.C.No.102/2013 on the file of the LXX Addl. City Civil
and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge, Bangalore City.
NC: 2025:KHC:25305
HC-KAR
The factual matrix of the case are as under:
2. It is the case of the complainant that on 29.05.2012,
around about 4.00 p.m., the complainant attended the
Court of Asst. Commissioner in Revenue Case No.5/2009-
10. The Advocate to the other side was submitting his
argument stated that the other side people were residing
in the address. By that time, the complainant and his wife
Smt. Sheela interfered and informed the Asst.
Commissioner that the Advocate was misleading the
Court.
3. It is further submitted that Smt. Bhagyamma and
Smt. Muniyamma who were the opposite parties have
created nuisance in the court hall. After the completion of
case proceedings, the complainant and his wife came out
from the court hall. However, the said accused followed
them and attacked them, insulted his wife by naming the
caste and also assaulted them. Being insulted in the
public, he lodged a complaint before the respondent
police. The respondent police have registered a case in
Cr. No. 163/2012 for the offences punishable under
NC: 2025:KHC:25305
HC-KAR
Sections 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and under
Section 3(1) (x) (xi) of SC/ST Act, 1989. After conducting
investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the
accused for the aforesaid offences.
4. To prove the case, the prosecution examined six
witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked five documents
as Exs.P.1 to 5. The Trial Court acquitted the accused for
the aforesaid offences.
5. Heard Sri. A.N.Radha Kirshna, learned counsel for the
appellant, Smt. B. Pushpalatha, learned Addl. SPP for
respondent No.3 and Smt. Sukanya H.D., learned
counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2.
6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant
that the judgment of the acquittal passed by the Trial
Court is opposed to the law, facts and probabilities of the
case.
7. The evidence of P.W.6-Smt.Sheela who is the wife of
P.W.5 has not been considered properly. In fact, the
evidence of P.W.5 was recorded in the absence of counsel
for the accused and the same was passed over to 3.00
NC: 2025:KHC:25305
HC-KAR
p.m., for the cross-examination. However, as per the
order sheet, on 23.03.2017, P.W.5 and C.W.2 were
present and C.W.2 was examined as P.W. 6. Since, the
counsel for the accused was absent, again the case was
passed over to 3.00 p.m. When the case was called out at
3.00 p.m., P.Ws.5 and 6 were present. However, on the
request made by the accused, the matter was adjourned
to 04.05.2017.
8. It is further submitted that on 04.05.2017, even though,
P.Ws.5 and 6 were present before the Court, the matter
was adjourned to 15.06.2017 for cross-examination.
Again on 15.06.2017, as the Presiding Officer was on
leave, the matter was posted to 31.08.2017. On
31.08.2017, the evidence of P.W.5 has been expunged as
P.W.5 was declined to give evidence. However, as far as
P.W.6 is concerned, the case was called out at 1.25 p.m.,
P.W.6 was present. However, due to some unavoidable
circumstances, the Trial Court did not consider the
evidence of even P.W.6 also. Consequently, the impugned
judgment is passed.
NC: 2025:KHC:25305
HC-KAR
9. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6
who are the eyewitnesses to the incident, their evidence
is very much essential for the effective disposal of the
case. As the Trial Court committed error in not
considering the evidence who were material witness to
the incident, it is appropriate to set aside the impugned
judgment and an opportunity must be given to the
witnesses of the prosecution to proceed with the case.
Making such submissions, learned counsel for the
appellant prays to allow the appeal.
10. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP for the respondent - State
vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel
for the appellant and she submitted that the order sheet
dated 31.08.2017 would clearly indicate that accused
Nos. 1 and 2 and P.Ws.5 and 6 were present. The
evidence of P.W.5 is expunged as he has declined to give
evidence. P.W.6 called again at 1.25 p.m., she is the wife
of P.W.5 and she is not present, therefore, her evidence
has taken as nil.
11. It is further submitted that as the appellant and his wife
were not present and co-operating with the trial and even
NC: 2025:KHC:25305
HC-KAR
also they have not made any efforts to file necessary
application to give their evidence on the next date of
hearing, it is not appropriate to set aside the judgment of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
12. Similarly, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2
adopted the arguments of learned Addl. SPP and she
prays to dismiss the appeal.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties
and also perused the findings of the Trial Court in
recording the acquittal, I have gone through the order
sheet of the Trial Court. It appears from the record that
the complainant is aged about 73 years, and he was
working as a Director, Indian Navy (Rtd.), Government of
India, Ministry of Defence. There are several dates of
which, he and his wife even though visited the Court to
give evidence, on one or the other pretext, the matter
was being adjourned.
14. The order dated 31.08.2017 passed by the Trial Court
appears to be unfair for the reason that the Court should
be or must be friendly with the Senior Citizens.
NC: 2025:KHC:25305
HC-KAR
Preference should have been given to the Senior Citizens
who approach the Court for justice. In stead of giving
opportunity for them to give proper evidence, the manner
in which, the Court behaved, in my view, is not proper
and therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the
Trial Court is liable to be set aside.
15. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment of acquittal dated 05.01.2018 passed
in Spl.C.C.No.102/2013 by the LXX Addl. City Civil
and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge, Bangalore City
is set aside.
(iii) Registry is directed to transmit the records of the
Trial Court forthwith for the purpose of considering
the evidence of erstwhile P.Ws.5 and 6.
(iv) The Trial Court shall continue the evidence from the
stage of examination of P.Ws.5 and 6 and pass
appropriate order in accordance with law after
NC: 2025:KHC:25305
HC-KAR
recording the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 and also
other material witnesses.
(v) The Trial Court is also directed to issue notice to
the witnesses and fix a date for hearing and also
issue notice to the respondents/accused for their
appearance.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
JS
