Karnataka High Court
Sri Puttaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 24 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22293
CRL.A No. 1062 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1062 OF 2013 (C)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1180 OF 2013 (A)
IN CRL.A NO. 1062/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PUTTARAJU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O. LATE SRI. LAKKEGOWDA
R/AT: MURUKANAHALLI VILLAGE
SEELANERE HOBLI, K.R. PET TQ
MANDYA DISTRICT.
2. SRI. HARISHA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O. SRI. PUTTARAJU
R/AT: MURUKANAHALLI VILLAGE
SEELANERE HOBLI, K.R. PET TQ
Digitally signed MANDYA DISTRICT.
by NANDINI B
G ...APPELLANTS
Location: High (BY SRI: SATYANARAYANA CHALKE .S., ADVOCATE)
Court of
Karnataka
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
K.R. PET RURAL POLICE STATION
MANDYA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT: RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2013
PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., MANDYA IN S.C.NO.105/2010 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22293
CRL.A No. 1062 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2013
HC-KAR
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 324 AND THE ACCUSED NO.2 FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 326 OF IPC; THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 3
MONTHS AND PAY FINE OF RS.1,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE
SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR ANOTHER ONE MONTH FOR HAVING
CAUSED SIMPLE HURT TO PW-03 M.B.NAGEGOWDA FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 324 OF IPC; ACCUSED
NO.1 SHALL ALSO SUFFER S.I. FOR 6 MONTHS AND PAY FINE OF
RS.1,500/-, IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE TO UNDERGO S.I.
FOR ANOTHER 1 AND 1/2 MONTHS FOR HAVING CAUSED SIMPLE
HURT TO PW-04 NAGARAJU THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 324 OF IPC; BOTH THE SENTENCES SHALL RUN
CONCURRENTLY; THE APPELALNT/ACCUSED NO.2 SHALL SUFFER
S.I. FOR 2 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.3,000/,- IN DEFAULT OF
PAYMENT OF FINE, TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR ANOTHER 3 MONTHS FOR
HAVING CAUSED GREIVOUS HURT TO PW-5 M.R.PRAKASHA FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 326 OF IPC.
IN CRL.A NO. 1180/2013
BETWEEN:
NAGAMMA
WIFE OF PUTTARAJU
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDENT OF MURUKANAHALLI VILLAGE
SEELANERE HOBLI
K.R. PETE TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI: SATYANARAYANA CHALKE .S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
K.R. PET RURAL POLICE STATION
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
2. PRAKASHA
SON OF RAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
3. NAGARAJA
SON OF JAVAREGOWDA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:22293
CRL.A No. 1062 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2013
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
4. NAGEGOWDA
SON OF BOMMARAYIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO 4
ARE RESIDENT OF
MURUKANAHALLI VILLAGE
SEELANERE HOBLI
K.R. PETE TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT: RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1
SRI. KUSHAL GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO 4)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITAL DATED
30.9.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., MANDYA IN S.C.NO.52/2012 -
ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 323, 324, 504 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1062 of 2013 being
accused Nos.1 and 2 in SC No.105 of 2010 on the file of the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya, (for short 'the Trial
Court'), are impugning the judgment of conviction dated
30.09.2013 and order of sentence dated 03.10.2013 convicting
accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of
NC: 2025:KHC:22293
HC-KAR
IPC, and convicting accused No.2 for the offence punishable
under Section 326 of IPC, with default sentences, while
acquitting them for the offence punishable under Sections 323,
307 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The defacto complainant in SC No.52 of 2012
before the Trial Court, is seeking to set aside the judgment of
acquittal dated 30.09.2013 and to convict the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 307 and 504 read with
Section 34 of IPC.
3. Brief facts of the case as made out by the
prosecution is that, on 19.11.2009 at about 8.30 p.m., when
PWs.3 to 5 in SC No.105 of 2010 went near milk dairy, accused
Nos.1 and 2 who are having ill-will against them came to the
spot and picked up quarrel. Accused No.1 held PW3 with his
neck, accused No.2 bit the left hand index finger of PW3. When
PWs.4 and 5 tried to intervene in the matter, accused No.2
assaulted PW4 with soda bottle on his head. Immediately,
accused No.1 snatched the said bottle and assaulted PW5.
Thereby caused injuries to PWs.3 to 5.
4. In SC No.52 of 2012, the prosecution witnesses in
SC No.105 of 2010 are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3. It is
NC: 2025:KHC:22293
HC-KAR
stated that on the same date, time and place, these accused
have assaulted PWs.4 and 8 who are none other than accused
Nos.1 and 2 in SC No.105 of 2010 and assaulted and caused
injuries. Thereby, they have committed the offences punishable
under Sections 323, 324, 326, 307 and 504 read with Section
34 of IPC.
5. In SC No.105 of 2010, the Trial Court took
cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The
accused appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to
11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and identified MOs.1 to 5.
The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on
record in their statement recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., but not led any evidence nor got marked any
documents in support of their defence. The Trial Court after
taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to
the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted
and sentenced the accused as stated above. Being aggrieved
by the same, the accused have preferred Criminal Appeal
No.1062 of 2013.
NC: 2025:KHC:22293
HC-KAR
6. In SC No.52 of 2012, the Trial Court took
cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The
accused appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9
and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and identified MOs.1 and 2. The
accused denied all the incriminating materials available on
record in their statement recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., but not led any evidence nor got marked any
documents in support of their defence. The Trial Court after
taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to
the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the
accused for the charges leveled against them. Being aggrieved
by the same, the defacto complainant has preferred Criminal
Appeal No.1180 of 2013 seeking to set aside the impugned
judgment of acquittal and to convict the accused for the
charges leveled against them.
7. Heard Sri S Sathyanarayana Chalke, learned
counsel for the appellants, Smt Rashmi Jadhav, learned
Additional SPP for respondent - State and Sri Kushal Gowda,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 in Criminal Appeal
NC: 2025:KHC:22293
HC-KAR
No.1180 of 2013. Perused the materials including the Trial
Court records.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal
Appeal No.1062 of 2013 contended that since the date, time
and place of incident in both these cases are one and the same,
the procedure as contemplated in Full Bench decision of this
Court in State of Karnataka, by Circle Inspector of Police
Vs Hosakeri Ningappa and Another1, was required to be
followed. But admittedly, the said procedure is not followed
and under such circumstances, the appeal is to be allowed and
the accused are required to be acquitted.
9. Learned Additional SPP for the respondent - State
fairly conceded that both these cases are case and counter case
and that the procedure as required is not followed. But,
however, contended that there are sufficient materials to
convict the accused in both the cases. Hence, prays to allow
Criminal Appeal No.1180 of 2013 and to convict the accused
and prays for dismissal of Criminal Appeal No.1062 of 2013 and
to confirm the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the Trial Court.
ILR 2012 KAR 509
NC: 2025:KHC:22293
HC-KAR
10. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned
counsel for both the parties, the points that would arise for my
consideration is:
(i) Whether the appellants in Criminal
Appeal No.1062 of 2013 have made out any
grounds to interfere with impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the
Trial Court and to acquit them for the charges
leveled against them?
(ii) Whether the appellant in Criminal
Appeal No.1180 of 2013 has made out any ground
to set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal
passed by the Trial Court?"
My answer to point No.1 is in the 'Affirmative and point
No.2 in the 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
11. In Hosakeri Ningappa (supra), the Full Bench of
this Court have considered various decisions as well as the
decision of Hon'ble Apex Court to find out as to what was the
procedure that is to be followed by the Investigating Officer as
well as by the Courts while dealing with case and counter case.
It has observed that there is no statute governing the
NC: 2025:KHC:22293
HC-KAR
procedure to be adopted in case and counter case or cross
cases. But however, it was noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court
had laid down the procedure for trial in such matters. In the
absence of any statutory law, the law declared by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, binds on all the Courts in India as per Article
14 of Constitution of India, is to be treated as good law.
12. It is to be noted that initially the Division Bench has
referred the following questions for consideration to the larger
Bench, which is as follows:
(1) Whether the proceedings are vitiated if
the case and counter case are not tried as held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nathi Lal vs. State of
U.P. reported in 1990 SCC (Cri) 638 and Sudhir and
others vs. State of M.P. reported in 2001 SCC (Cri)
387?
(2) Whether the evidence recorded in one
case can be looked into in the other case? If so,
when and to what extent?
(3) If the Trial Court disposes of case and
counter case on different dates acquitting the
accused therein and no appeal is preferred in one
of the cases and appeal is preferred in the case
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22293
HC-KAR
decided later whether the proceedings in the later
case are vitiated?"
13. After discussing at length, the larger Bench
answered the reference at paragraph 18 as follows:
"18. In view of the foregoing reasons, we
answer the points referred to us as under:
(a) If the case and counter case are not
tried simultaneously as held by the Supreme court
in the case of NATHI LAL vs. STATE OF U.P.(Supra)
and in the case of SUDHIR AND OTHERS vs. STATE
OF M.P.(Supra) the proceedings ipso facto do not
get vitiated. But, where the irregular procedure
adopted by the Trial Court has caused prejudice to
the accused and has occasioned failure of justice,
the proceeding and the trial vitiates. Otherwise, the
proceedings are protected under section 465 of the
code.
(b) The evidence recorded in one case
cannot be looked into in the other case. The Trial
Judge can only rely upon the evidence recorded in
that particular case and the evidence recorded in
the cross case cannot be looked into. Each case
must be decided on the basis of the evidence which
has been placed on record in the particular case.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22293
HC-KAR
However, if the evidence recorded in one case is
brought on record in accordance with procedure
known to law in the other case, then, such evidence
which is legally brought on record can be looked
into. Otherwise, the evidence recorded in one case
cannot be looked into in the other case.
(c) If the Trial Court disposes of the case
and counter case on different dates acquitting the
accused therein and no appeal is preferred in one of
the cases and the appeal is preferred in the case
decided later, the proceedings in the later case do
not automatically get vitiated. Each case has to be
judged on its own merits. Unless prejudice is shown
to have been caused to the accused, the
proceedings in the later case do not get vitiated."
14. In the present case, even though the Investigating
officer investigated into both the cases, the charge sheet came
to be filed on different dates i.e., first charge sheet came to be
filed on 01.03.2010 and the other came to be filed on
31.03.2010. Even though matters were tried before the same
Court, they were not tried as case and counter case. It is
brought to the notice of this Court that even though the
prosecution has not referred to the evidence recorded in the
connected matter, the Trial Court proceeded to refer to the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22293
HC-KAR
evidence in the other matter to determine the case either in
favour or against the accused.
15. It is not in dispute that the eye witnesses referred
to in both the cases are the accused in the other case. Except
the injured eye witnesses, none of the independent witnesses
have supported the case of the prosecution. There is no
explanation in SC No.105 of 2010 as to how and why the
accused sustained injury. Similar is the case with SC No.52 of
2012, as there is no explanation as to why and how the
accused sustained injury, which is fatal to the case of the
prosecution. Under such circumstances, the accused in SC
No.52 of 2012 were acquitted by the Trial Court rightly. But it
has committed an error in convicting accused No.1 in SC
No.105 of 2010 for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and
accused No.2 for the offence under Section 326 of IPC without
any basis.
16. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that
the conviction of accused Nos.1 and 2 in SC No.105 of 2010
was not supported by any materials and non following of the
procedure has definitely occurred failure of justice and the
entire proceedings of the trial court get vitiated. Therefore, I
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22293
HC-KAR
am of the opinion that the appellants in Criminal Appeal
No.1062 of 2013 are also required to be acquitted for the
offences under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC In view of the
above, I am of the opinion that Criminal Appeal No.1062 of
2013 is liable to be allowed by setting aside the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
Trial Court, while Criminal Appeal No.1180 of 2013 is required
to be dismissed by confirming the impugned judgment of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
17. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative
and point No.2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal No.1062 of 2013 is allowed.
(ii) Criminal Appeal No.1180 of 2013 is dismissed.
(iii) The judgment of conviction dated 30.09.2013 and
the order of sentence dated 03.10.2013 passed in SC No.105 of
2010 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Mandya, is
herby set aside.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22293
HC-KAR
(iv) Consequently, accused Nos.1 and 2 in Criminal
Appeal No.1062 of 2013 is acquitted for the offences
punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC.
(v) Bail bond and that of sureties shall stand cancelled.
Fine amount, if any, deposited by accused Nos.1 and 2 is
ordered to be refunded to them after appeal period is over.
Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with
copy of this judgment for information and for needful action.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
*bgn/-
CT:VS
