Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Raja on 21 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11972
CRL.A No. 1215 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1215 OF 2020 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NAYAKANAHATTY POLICE
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-1
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
AND:
1. RAJA
S/O KULDA PALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
PROF: FARMER
Digitally signed by
SHAKAMBARI
Location: High 2. KULDU PALAIAH
Court of Karnataka S/O LATE PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
PROF FARMER
BOTH ARE R/O BHATHAIAHNAHATTI VILLAGE
CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 22.07.2019
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11972
CRL.A No. 1215 of 2020
PASSED IN S.C.NO.16/2019 BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, THEREBY, ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S
447,504,323,324 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant - State being aggrieved by the
judgment of acquittal dated 22.07.2019 passed in
SC.No.16/2019 by the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Chitradurga has preferred this appeal.
2. The parties to this appeal are referred to as per
their status before the Trial Court.
3. The accused was charge sheeted by P.S.I
Nayakanahatty police station, Challakere taluk,
Chitradurga for the offences punishable under Sections
447, 504, 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC
alleging, that complainant - Umakka and her husband
Chandranna are the residents of Bhathaiahnahatty village
NC: 2025:KHC:11972
and residing with their two children. They are possessing
landed property in Survey No. 499 of Bhathaiahnahatty
village of Challakere taluk. It is alleged, that at about
11.30 a.m, on 24.09.2018, the second son of the
complainant by name 'Sridhara' had been to his landed
property for the purpose of irrigating onion crop. To that
effect, when he was near the bore well, he noticed that
accused No.1 - Raja had cut and removed the electrical
wire fixed to the starter of the Bore well. This 'Sridhara'
informed the accused No.1 that he will inform this fact to
his parents. But, accused No.1 enraged by the words of
said Sridhara, abused him in filthy language, so also
provoked the complainant. Accused No.2 - Kulda papaiah
i.e., the father of accused No.1, abated accused No.1 to
commit the offence. The said accused No.1 by holding
coconut leaves assaulted 'Sridhara' on his back and waist.
Accused No.2 assaulted him by using stick on his left fore-
arm and gave a life threat to him. By that time, Suraiah
and Palaiah came and rescued Sridhara from the clutches
of the accused. Thereafter, Sridhara went to his house
NC: 2025:KHC:11972
and informed the said incident to his mother, complainant
- Umakka and she took him to the hospital for a
treatment.
4. The SHO of Nayakanahatty police station, on
getting MLC report, went to the hospital at 4.00 p.m, and
recorded the statement of the complainant - Umakka in
between 4.00 pm and 4.45 p.m. Came to the police
station and registered the crime in Crime No.147/2018
and set the criminal law in motion. On completion of
investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the
accused persons for the aforesaid offences. As there were
alleged a violation of the provisions of Commissions for
Protections of Child Rights Act, 2005, charge sheet was
laid before the Trial Court for the aforesaid offences.
5. The Trial Court took the cognizance of the
offence. Presence of the accused was secured and they
were enlarged on bail. Charges were framed against the
accused for the aforesaid offences, read over and
NC: 2025:KHC:11972
explained in the language known to them and for which
they pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
6. To substantiate the charges against the
accused, prosecution in all examined 10 witnesses as PW.1
to PW.10 and got marked documents as per Exs.P1 to
P10, so also MO Nos.1 and 2 and closed its evidence.
Thereafter, accused were questioned under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C, so as to enable them to answer the incriminating
circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution.
They denied their complicity in the crime and did not
choose to lead any defence evidence.
7. The learned Trial Court, on hearing the
arguments and on scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence
led by the prosecution, raised 5 points for consideration
and answered all the points in the negative and ultimately
by disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution, passed an
order of acquittal of both the accused for the aforesaid
offences vide judgment dated 22.07.2019. This is how
NC: 2025:KHC:11972
now the appellant - State is before this Court challenging
the impugned judgment of acquittal.
8. Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP, in
addition to narrating the facts of the case and finding fault
with the findings of the Trial Court would submit that,
PW.2 is the injured and his evidence is corroborated by the
evidence of other witnesses. As the injured witness was
the child witness, below the age of 18 years as on the date
of incident, therefore by invoking the provisions of Section
25 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act,
2005, the charge sheet was laid before the Special Court
and accordingly, the case was tried. Sofaras the minority
of PW.2, when the said incident took place, it is not
disputed by the prosecution or the defence. However to
that effect, the prosecution relies upon Ex.P6 - the birth
certificate of PW.2, wherein it shows that, he was a minor,
born on 18.12.2002 and the date of incident took place on
24.09.2018. That means when the said incident took
place, PW.2 - Sridhara was a minor.
NC: 2025:KHC:11972
9. She would further submits that, in view of
evidence of PW.1 - Umakka, the mother of PW.2, as well
as other corroborative evidence do establish about assault
on the person of PW.2 and injuries so sustained by him.
Presence of accused Nos.1 and 2, at the spot is not
disputed. Therefore, she would submit that, the findings
of the Trial Court have to be set at naught and accused
persons are liable to be convicted and sentenced. She
placed reliance on the grounds urged in the appeal memo
and prays to allow the appeal.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent - accused would submit that, findings of the
Trial Court clinchingly establish, that except the self
serving evidence of PW.2 coupled with the interested
evidence of PW.1, there is no evidence placed on record by
the prosecution. Therefore, he submits that, there is no
evidence placed on record to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, prays to
dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:11972
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments of both the sides. Perused the records. In
view of the rival submissions of both sides, the point that
is to be decided in this appeal is:
"Whether the findings of the Trial Court with
regard to the acquittal of accused require
any interference by this Court?"
12. It is a case of assault. When assault and threat
is alleged against the accused persons, so also using of
filthy language against PW.2, it is a duty of the
prosecution to prove the so called incident with legal
evidence. There must be corroborative evidence with
regard to the said incident and also nature of injuries
sustained by the injured, which must be corroborative in
nature, with that of the contents of the Wound Certificate.
Evidently PW.1 - Umakka is a hearsay witness and after
the incident, when PW.2 informed about the incident, she
took him to the hospital and in the hospital she gave a
complaint as per Ex.P1. As she is a hearsay witness,
NC: 2025:KHC:11972
much value cannot be attached to the evidence of PW.1
and more so she is the mother of PW.2. However, in the
cross-examination, she deposes that, she lodged a
complaint in between 3 p.m and 4 p.m, but complaint
shows it was filed in between 4 p.m and 4.45 p.m. During
that time, her son was studying in 9th Standard, but
denied the suggestion to the effect that, her son PW.2 had
committed theft of sheep of the accused and to that effect
accused lodge a complaint against him.
13. PW.2 - Sridhara as per the discussion
made by the Trial Court during the course of judgment do
reveal that, he went to the landed property at 11.30 a.m
on that day to irrigate the onion crop, but noticed that
accused No.1 had cut and removed the electrical wire
connected to the Bore well starter. After getting such
knowledge about cutting the electric wire, PW.2 informed
accused No.1 that he will bring this fact to the notice of his
parents, being enraged by this, accused No.1 picked up a
quarrel with him, abused him in filthy language, assaulted
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11972
him with coconut leaves on his back and waist. Accused
No.2 gave a threat and abated accused No.1 not to leave
him and gave a stick to assault PW.2. But the complaint
allegation shows that, accused No.2 assaulted PW.2 with
stick. As observed by the Trial Court, so much of
improved evidence has been spoken by PW.2 both in
examination-in-chief and in his cross-examination. He
identifies MO Nos.1 and 2 and it is recovered from the
scene of offence at the time of preparing panchanama at
Ex.P2. He states in his cross-examination that, he has not
given any statement before the police. As rightly
observed by the Trial Court, PW.1 is the hearsay witness
to the alleged incident and PW.2 has given quiet different
evidence with improved version both in his examination-
in-chief as well as in his cross-examination.
14. As per the case of the prosecution, PW.3 and
PW.4 are the eye witnesses and they rescued PW.2, but
PW.3 and PW.4 have been turned hostile. Though they
are cross-examined by the prosecution, but nothing worth
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11972
is elicited. It has come in the evidence of prosecution
that, PW.2 and PW.5 are also the eye witnesses, but
prosecution cited them as spot panchas. There is no
explanation offered that, why PW.5 is not arrayed as eye
witness. PW.6 is the spot pancha and in his presence MO
Nos.1 and 2 were seized. Though evidence of PW.5 and
PW.6 proved about panchanama but other evidence is not
credit worthy to be accepted.
15. PW.7 is another witness with regard to the
incident and according to him, near the scene of offence,
his land is situated, but his evidence is not worth reading
as per the case to prove that, it was accused No.1 who
had cut and removed the electric wire connecting the
electric starter.
16. PW.8 - Dr. Nagaraj, though speaks about
noticing of the injuries on the person of PW.2, when he
medically examined him but altogether, he has given a
different evidence in his examination-in-chief as well as in
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11972
cross-examination with regard to the injuries as narrated
in Ex.P5 - Wound Certificate.
17. PW.10 - Head Constable registered the crime
and set the criminal law in motion. The learned Trial Court
while giving findings on various points for consideration,
has considered the improved version of the witnesses,
inconsistencies with regard to the injury suffered by PW.2
with that of the Wound Certificate and has noticed the
contradictions, omissions and discrepancies in the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses and has come to the
conclusion that, with regard to the said incident except self
serving evidence of PW.2, there is no direct evidence
spoken to by any witnesses. PW.1 and PW.3 are the
hearsay witnesses to the said incident. As rightly argued
by the counsel for the accused, there are material
contradiction and improvements in the evidence of PW.2
and the injuries so suffered by PW.2 are not duly proved
as per the contents of the complaint. The learned Trial
Court has pointed out all these discrepancies in its findings
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11972
and has come to the conclusion that, in view of the
evidence led by the prosecution, it is not safe to convict
the accused and prosecution has failed to prove the cogent
and acceptable evidence to convict both the accused.
Even on re-appreciation of such evidence, one cannot
come to a different conclusion than the conclusion arrived
at by the Trial Court. More so, this is an appeal on
acquittal and while appreciating the evidence in a
judgment of acquittal, the innocence of accused in view of
acquittal is more probable. Even on re-appreciation of
evidence, in view of the clear findings of the Trial Court, I
do not find any factual or legal error committed by the
Trial Court in acquitting the accused. Therefore, the Trial
Court has given sound findings in acquitting the accused.
More so, in appreciating the evidence of PW.2 - the minor
child, the Court must be very cautious. No such evidence
is placed on record that, the evidence of PW.2, a child
witness is trust worthy. Therefore, in the considered view
of this Court, in view of the discussion made above, the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11972
appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. Consequentially,
the impugned judgment deserves to be confirmed.
18. Resultantly, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) Impugned judgment dated 22.07.2019
passed in SC.No.16/2019 by the Principal
District and Session Judge, Chitradurga, is
affirmed.
(iii) Bail bonds of the accused, if any, stands
discharged.
(iv) Send a copy of this judgment to the Trial
Court forthwith for information/reference.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
SK/AM
