Karnataka High Court
State By Police Sub Inspector vs Lingappa on 5 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10021-DB
CRL.A No. 1106 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 709 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1106 OF 2017 (A)
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 709 OF 2017
IN CRL.A. No.1106/2017
BETWEEN:
STATE BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
UPPINANGADY POLICE STATION,
PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
Digitally signed by ... APPELLANT
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: HIGH (BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. LINGAPPA
S/O PODIYA,
AGED 37 YEARS,
R/AT KAJEKKADU HOUSE,
NELLAYADI VILLAGE,
PUTTUR-574201.
2. RAMESHA
S/O ANGARA,
AGED 32 YEARS,
R/AT KAJEKKADU HOUSE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10021-DB
CRL.A No. 1106 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 709 of 2017
NELLAYADI VILLAGE,
PUTTUR-574201.
3. ANNU MOGERA
S/O MUDARA
AGED 56 YEARS,
R/AT PADUBETTU HOUSE,
NELLAYADI VILLAGE,
PUTTUR-574201.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C
BY THE S.P.P. FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED OF ACQUITTAL DATED
07.10.2016 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.5025/2015 AND 5026/2015 BY
THE LEARNED V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
D.K., MANGALORE, SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K., THEREBY REVERSING
THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.08.2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS, PUTTUR, D.K., IN C.C.NO.1145/2008 AND ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 341, 326, 506,
109 R/W 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.R.P. NO.709/2017
BETWEEN:
STATE BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
UPPINANGADY POLICE STATION,
PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)
AND:
1. LINGAPPA
S/O PODIYA,
AGE 37 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:10021-DB
CRL.A No. 1106 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 709 of 2017
R/AT KAJEKKADU HOUSE,
NELLAYADI VILLAGE,
PUTTUR-574201.
2. RAMESHA
S/O ANGARA,
AGE 32 YEARS,
R/AT KAJEKKADU HOUSE,
NELLAYADI VILLAGE,
PUTTUR-574201.
3. ANNU MOGERA
S/O MUDARA,
AGE 57 YEARS,
R/AT PADUBETTU HOUSE,
NELLAYADI VILLAGE,
PUTTUR-574201.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
BY THE S.P.P FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO i) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
PASSED BY THE APPELLATE COURT V ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., D.K.,
MANGALORE SITTING AT PUTTUR D.K., IN CRL.A.5012/2016 DATED
07.10.2016 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 326,109 R/W 34 OF IPC; ii)
IMPOSE PROPER, ADEQUATE AND MAXIMUM SENTENCE TO THE
ACCUSED PERSONS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 326, 109 R/W 34 OF
IPC BY MODIFYING THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE COURT OF THE
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR D.K., PASSED IN
C.C.NO.1145/2008 BY ITS JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
11.08.2015.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION
COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:10021-DB
CRL.A No. 1106 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 709 of 2017
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
and
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA)
Both the criminal appeal and the criminal revision
petition are preferred by the State. Criminal Appeal is
against the judgment and order passed in
Crl.A.Nos.5025/2015 and 5026/2015 dated 07.10.2016 on
the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge,
D.K., Mangalore sitting at Puttur, D.K. (referred to as
'Sessions Court') thereby reversing the judgment dated
11.08.2015 passed by the court of Additional Civil Judge
and JMFC, Puttur, D.K. in C.C.No.1145/2008 and
acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 326, 506, 109 read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Criminal
Revision Petition insofar as praying to impose adequate
sentence on the accused persons for the offences
NC: 2025:KHC:10021-DB
punishable under Sections 326 and 109 of IPC read with
Section 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on
05.12.2007, at around 8.15 a.m. while PW1 was on his
way to work, he was restrained by accused Nos.1 and 2
near the house of accused No.1, then accused No.1 threw
chili powder into his eyes and assaulted him with a sickle
on his left leg, while accused No.2 struck him with a
wooden plank. Upon hearing his screams, his wife-PW3,
mother and neighbors came to the spot. A complaint was
given by PW1 about the incident as per Ex.P1,
investigation which resulted in the accused being charge
sheeted and tried.
3. The prosecution in support of their case,
examined 11 witnesses viz., PWs 1 to 11 and Ex.P1 to
Ex.P10 were marked, material objects M.Os 1 to 4 were
produced, Exs.D1 to Exs.D7 were marked in favour of the
defence during the course of the cross-examination of the
prosecution witness.
NC: 2025:KHC:10021-DB
4. The learned Magistrate believed the testimony
of the witnesses and also referred to Ex.P5 and Ex.P9, the
medical reports to hold that PW1 had sustained grievous
injury besides considering the seizure of sickle in the
presence of PW4 and PW5 under Ex.P4 and recorded an
order of conviction against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 326, 506 and 109
read with 34 of IPC.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment, the accused has
preferred criminal appeal and State has also preferred an
appeal against the punishment imposed being inadequate.
The sessions court, on re-appreciation of the entire oral
and documentary evidence reversed the conviction and
acquitted the accused, granting them a benefit of doubt,
giving the reasons that prior enmity between the
complainant and the accused in regard to the
measurement of land could be motive for false implication,
the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 about whether they
actually witnessed the incident is doubtful, and medical
NC: 2025:KHC:10021-DB
evidence is also contradictory. The appellate court found
that the prosecution failed to present credible evidence to
establish the guilt.
6. We have heard the learned High Court
Government Pleader Mr.Harish Ganapathy, appearing for
the State and also learned counsel Mr.Suyog Herele E,
appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the
entire material on record.
7. It is the contention of the learned HCGP
appearing for the State that the evidence of PW1
corroborates the contents of Ex.P1 - the complaint, the
evidence of PW2 and PW3 as well as the medical evidence
of PW7 and PW9 supports the case of the prosecution. It is
submitted that if the evidence had been properly
appreciated by the appellate court, there would be a
possibility to hold that the offence has been established
and is one punishable under the aforesaid Section. It is
submitted that the magistrate court has rightly
appreciated the case of the prosecution and held there
NC: 2025:KHC:10021-DB
was no occasion for PW1 to lodge a false complaint and
rightly convicted the accused, which is reversed by the
Appellate court without assigning valid reasons. It is
submitted that though the trial court held that the accused
committed an offence under Section 326 of IPC, it failed to
award adequate sentence.
8. It is the submission of the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent that there is no
corroboration from the witnesses more particularly, PW2
and PW3, which weakens the case of the prosecution
about the incident having taken place. It is argued that the
wound certificate also does not indicate any injury to the
eye and the claim of the prosecution that chili powder was
thrown into the eye of PW1 is falsified. There is
inconsistency and lack of corroborative evidence, which
created sufficient doubt in favour of the accused and in the
given circumstances, the motive to falsely implicate the
accused is found by the session's court. The session's
NC: 2025:KHC:10021-DB
court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to
prove beyond reasonable doubt.
9. We have considered the rival contentions urged
by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
10. Upon careful assessment of the facts narrated
above, we need to significantly understand the situation in
the context of evidence of the key witnesses' viz., PW1,
PW2 and PW3 and material document Ex.P5 and Ex.P9.
11. The complaint at Ex P1 and the evidence of
PW1 states about the pre-existing land dispute between
the complainant and the accused. Upon measurement of
the land, it was found that the complainant was in
possession of the accused's land. The complaint and the
evidence of PW1 do not corroborate with each other for
the sole reason that PW2, who is the brother of PW1, his
presence at the time of incident is not forthcoming in the
complaint. As per the complaint, PW1 mentions that on
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10021-DB
hearing his scream, his wife, mother and neighbors came
to the place of incident whereas, PW1's evidence is to the
effect that PW2 and PW3 on hearing his scream, came to
the place of incident.
12. PW2 is stated to be an eye-witness to the case
of the prosecution. PW2 states that he heard the scream
of PW1, his brother when he was coming from his house to
the house of PW1, whereas, in his cross-examination, PW2
admits that he was in his house at the time of incident,
and on hearing the scream, he too went to the place of
incident. PW2's evidence is to the extent that he was at a
distance of 70 meters away from the place of incident.
.
13. PW3 is none other than the wife of PW1 who in
her chief-examination deposed about the incident that
took place in front of the house of accused No.1 on
05.12.2015. The incident stated by PW3 corroborates the
contents of complaint and evidence of PW1. In the cross-
examination of PW3, she has categorically admitted that
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10021-DB
she was tutored by her husband to give evidence. Thus,
the evidence of PW3 would not inspire the confidence of
the court. Importantly, it is to be stated that PW2 and
PW3 deposed that they witnessed the incident from 70
meters, giving scope for doubting they were witness to the
attack.
14. PW4 is panch witness to Ex.P4 under which
M.O.1 is said to have been seized. PW4 is none other than
the brother of PW3 and in cross-examination, PW4
admitted that PW1 tutored him to give evidence.
15. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate and Ex.P9 is the
case sheet. The complaint and the evidence of all the
witnesses is to the effect that accused No.1-Lingappa
poured chili powder in the eye of the complainant and
caused injury on the left leg with a sickle and accused
No.2 - hit the left hand of the complainant with a wooden
plank. In Exs.P5 and P9, the injury indicated is fracture of
left fibula bone (mid shaft), neither the wound certificate
nor the case sheet indicates any injury to the eyes or the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10021-DB
left hand of PW1, clearly falsifying the case of the
occurrence of incident and causing injury as mentioned in
the complaint and evidence. The injury sustained may not
be in dispute, but the medical evidence should corroborate
the evidence of the complainant and the other witnesses
about the wound. The material on record would indicate
that there is no material to show injury to the eyes or to
the hand as made out by the complainant, thus,
contradicting the claim that chili powder was thrown and
injury caused to the left hand. PW1 has categorically
admitted that there is a land dispute between the
complainant and the accused and the complainant was
found to be in possession of a portion of the accused land.
16. If the testimonies of all the witnesses are
assessed, the inference that can be drawn is that the
complainant and accused were involved in a land dispute
and the complainant was found to be in possession of a
portion of the accused land and there is a possible motive
to falsely implicate the accused. PW2-the brother of the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10021-DB
complainant, his name initially did not find place in the
complaint, but in the evidence of PW1, he states about
PW2 being present, which raises questions about whether
PW2 was truly present at the scene. The wound certificate
does not indicate any injury to the eyes, nor the injury
stated in the wound certificate matches with the injury
sustained to the left hand, thus weakening the
prosecution's case. These circumstances made the
sessions court hold that the prosecution failed to present
credible evidence to establish the guilt. In the given
inconsistency, lack of corroboration and possible motive
for false implication, the accused is entitled for acquittal.
There is no perversity in the order passed by the appellate
court and no ground made out to interfere with the
reasoned order of the first appellate court and therefore,
the order of acquittal is justified and this court pass the
following:
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10021-DB
ORDER
(i) The Appeal and revision petition are
hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
SS
