Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Tavaresha on 6 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9590-DB
CRL.A No. 303 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH 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. 303 OF 2018
Between:
State of Karnataka
By Akkur Police Station,
Channapatna Taluk
Ramanagara District
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru-560001.
...Appellant
(By Smt. R.Sowmya, HCGP)
And:
Digitally signed by
VEERENDRA 1. Tavaresha
KUMAR K M
S/o Late Siddappagowda,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF Aged 36 years,
KARNATAKA
2. Lokesha
S/o Dallali Gangappa,
Aged 31 years,
3. Smt. Channamma
W/o Nagalingaiah
Aged 55 years,
4. Rajagopala
S/o Siddalingegowda
Aged 48 years,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9590-DB
CRL.A No. 303 of 2018
5. Nagaraju
S/o Puttappa,
Aged 37 years,
6. Nagalingegowda
S/o Siddalingegowda
Aged 67 years
All are R/at Aralalusandra Village,
Virupakshipura Hobli,
Channapatna Taluk,
Ramanagara District-571501.
...Respondents
(By Sri K.A.Chandrashekara, Advocate for R1 to R5;
Appeal against R6 abated
vide order dated 16.04.2024))
This Criminal Appeal is filed u/s.378(1) and (3)
Cr.P.C praying to grant leave to appeal against the
judgment and order dated 25.09.2017, passed in
Crl.A.No.6/2011 on the file of the Court of I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, thereby setting
aside the judgment and sentence dated 06.01.2011
passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC,
Channapatna in C.C.No.164/2007 and acquitting the
respondents/accused of the offences p/u/s 143, 147, 148,
324, 326 and 506 r/w section 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Appeal, coming on for hearing, this
day, judgment was delivered therein as under:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:9590-DB
CRL.A No. 303 of 2018
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
and
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
This appeal is filed by the State challenging the
judgment of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Ramanagara, in Criminal Appeal No. 6/2011 reversing the
judgment of the Magistrate, Channapatna, who had
convicted accused 1 to 6 for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 and 506 read with
Section 149 of IPC. Each of the accused was sentenced to
simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/-
for the offence under Section 148 of IPC, accused 1 and 2
were each sentenced to simple imprisonment for three
years and fine of Rs.8,000/- and accused 3 to 6 were each
sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of
Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 326 of IPC. And
for the offence under Section 506 of IPC each of the
accused 1 to 6 was sentenced to simple imprisonment for
one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-.
NC: 2025:KHC:9590-DB
2. The prosecution case is that on 06.01.2006 at
about 8.00 a.m accused 1 to 6 formed unlawful assembly
in the mulberry plantation belonging to PW1, assaulted
him with a sickle and reaper patti (stick) and then caused
hurt to him. PW1 was taken to hospital. FIR was
registered on 10.03.2006. Investigation resulted in
accused being charge sheeted.
3. Assessing the evidence of the witnesses examined
by the prosecution, the Magistrate recorded conviction
believing the testimonies of PWs1, 2 and 5. PW1 is the
injured witness. PW2 is the wife of PW1 and PW5 is the
doctor who examined PW1 after he was taken to the
hospital. It is the finding of the Magistrate that the
testimony of PW1 is fully believable in as much as he has
given a clear account of the overt act of each of the
accused. Referring to the evidence of PW2 it is held by
the Magistrate that though she was not an eyewitness, her
testimony supports the prosecution to the extent that
when she went to the land where the incident had taken
NC: 2025:KHC:9590-DB
place she came to know from PW1 about what had
happened. PW5 is the doctor who treated PW1 and issued
wound certificate as per Ex.P4 noticing the presence of
eight injuries, the prominent among them being injuries 2,
3 and 7 i.e., abrasion on the right knee joint, swelling on
the left knee joint and lacerated wound on the left knee
joint which resulted in undisplaced fracture of patella
bone. She stated that these three injuries were grievous
in nature. Referring to the testimonies of these three
witnesses, the Magistrate has recorded conviction opining
that the testimonies of PW1, the injured, cannot be
brushed aside as it finds corroboration from the medical
evidence. Regarding the delay in registration of FIR it is
stated that the reasons given by PW1 are believable.
Since PW1 was taking treatment in the hospital it is quite
natural that he lodged FIR after discharge from the
hospital and the other explanation that though the doctor
sent information to the police about the incident, they did
not come and take the statement of the injured, is
NC: 2025:KHC:9590-DB
believable. These are the main reasons given by the
Magistrate for recording conviction.
4. The Sessions Court reversed the finding of the
Magistrate giving the reason that PW1 might have given
an account of the incident and the manner in which he was
assaulted, but the delay in registering FIR has not been
explained and whatever the reason that PW1 has given for
the delay cannot be accepted. This makes the testimony
of PW1 disbelievable. To disbelieve the testimony of PW2
the Sessions Court referred to her clear answer that she
did not come to know the names of the assailants.
5. We have heard the arguments of Smt. Sowmya,
learned HCGP and Sri K.A.Chandrashekara, learned
counsel for respondents 1 to 5.
6. On perusing the testimonies of all the witnesses
especially of the prominent witnesses, PWs1, 2 and 5, at
the outset we may state that though PW1 has stated that
all the 6 accused came and assaulted him when he was
working in his mulberry plantation and thereby he
NC: 2025:KHC:9590-DB
sustained injuries, it is to be stated that his evidence is
difficult to be believed because of delay in registration of
FIR. The incident occurred on 06.01.2006, FIR was
registered on 10.03.2006. Ex.P1 is the statement of PW1
based on which FIR was registered. PW1 while giving
evidence before the court stated that when he was taking
treatment in the hospital, the doctors sent information to
police, but the police did not come and take his statement.
Thereafter he met the Superintendent of Police. This news
was published in the newspaper and thereafter the police
received complaint from him and registered FIR. If these
were the reasons for the delay, that could have been
mentioned in Ex.P1. All that is stated is that he was
taking treatment in the hospital and after recovering he
came over to the police station and gave a report of the
incident. PW7 was the police officer who registered the
FIR and his evidence does not disclose any reason for the
delay occurred in registration of FIR. Being a police officer
he should have enquired PW1 the reason for delay and
recorded it in the FIR. Therefore it can be clearly stated
NC: 2025:KHC:9590-DB
that the reasons that PW1 gave before the court when he
adduced evidence could be an afterthought to overcome
the lapses on his part. As rightly observed by the
Sessions Court the reasons or the explanation given by
PW1 cannot be believed per se.
7. It is true that PW1 has stated that when he had
been to his land for cutting mulberry leaves, accused came
and assaulted him. He stated that accused No.2 was
having a sickle and accused No.1 was having a stick and
they all assaulted him indiscriminately on account of which
he lost consciousness. PW2 is the wife of PW1. Her
testimony is that when she went to the land at about
10.00 am she saw her husband lying unconscious. In the
examination-in-chief itself she stated that she did not
come to know who actually assaulted her husband.
Actually the prosecution wanted to prove from her that
when she went to the land she came to know from her
husband that all the accused assaulted her. As she did not
state in the examination-in-chief like that, she was treated
NC: 2025:KHC:9590-DB
hostile and in the cross-examination by the public
prosecutor she admitted that she came to know about
assault from her husband. The version of PW2 is difficult
to be believed because if she actually came to know from
her husband that the assault was by all the accused, she
should have stated so, but her first version was totally
contrary. In this view, the evidence of PW2 in the cross-
examination by public prosecutor cannot be believed.
8. PW5 is the doctor. Her evidence shows that on
06.01.2006 at about 1.45 p.m PW1 was brought to the
hospital and she noticed about eight injuries having been
sustained by PW1. She noticed displaced fracture of
patella bone of the left leg. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate.
PW1 might have taken treatment, but merely based on the
evidence of PW5 alone the case of the prosecution cannot
be believed because PW2 has admitted in the cross-
examination that her husband had been assaulted by one
Nagaraju about three months prior to the incident. When
this question was put to PW1, he denied it. PW2 admits
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9590-DB
that her husband had been assaulted and for this reason
evidence of PW5 about the injuries noticed by her does not
assume significance. It is here the delay factor plays an
important role. Looked from any angle, the evidence of
PW1 is difficult to be believed in spite of support from
medical evidence. In our opinion the Sessions Court has
not committed any error in reversing the judgment of the
Magistrate. Since the Appellate Court has also re-
appreciated the evidence, there cannot be any
interference with the finding of the Sessions Court as it
appears that the appreciation of evidence made by the
Sessions Court is not incorrect. Therefore the appeal is
dismissed. Bail bonds executed by accused 1 to 6 are
cancelled.
Sd/-
(SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
