Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs M Seetharama on 21 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11849-DB
CRL.A No. 1080 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST 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.1080 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SULLIA POLICE STATION,
SULLIA TALUK, D.K.,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R., HCGP)
Digitally signed by AND:
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. M. SEETHARAMA
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O. LATE KOOSAPPA GOWDA
R/O KOLCHARU HOUSE,
ALETTY VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT-574239.
2. SHIVARAMA .K
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O. LATE KOOSAPPA GOWDA,
R/O. KOLCHARU HOUSE,
ALETTY VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT-574239.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11849-DB
CRL.A No. 1080 of 2018
3. JAYA PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O. SHIVAPPA GOWDA,
R/O. HOSAGADDE HOUSE,
ALETTY VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT-574239.
4. SATHISHA .K
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O. GOPALAKRISHNA GOWDA
R/O. HOSAGADDE HOUSE,
ALETTY VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT-574239.
5. BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O. LATE BOJAPPA GOWDA,
R/O. KOLCHARU HOUSE,
ALETTY VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT-574239.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.N. SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-5)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND
(3) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 27.12.2017
PASSED IN S.C.NO.5005/2015 BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU, SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K.,
THEREBY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENTS FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 341,
323, 324, 307 AND 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 30 OF
INDIAN ARMS ACT AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:11849-DB
CRL.A No. 1080 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 by the State questioning the
correctness of the acquittal judgment dated 27.12.2017 in
Sessions Case No.5005/2015 on the file of V Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru
(sitting at Puttur). Five accused persons faced trial for
the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147,
148, 341, 323, 324, 307 and 506 read with Section 149 of
IPC, and Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959.
2. The prosecution case is as below:
There was dispute with regard to using a pathway
between the families of Gattigaru Seetharama and
Marlakaje family. A panchayath was arranged to resolve
this dispute and in that panchayath, PW.1 participated in
favour of Gattigaru Seetharama. On 15.02.2014, PW.1
went to the house of Vijaya Kumar in connection with
NC: 2025:KHC:11849-DB
cooking food, as marriage had been arranged in his family.
The accused persons also came to the marriage place for
the purpose of cooking food. Around 2.30 a.m. the
accused persons left the place after finishing the cooking
work. PW.1 also left that place riding his motorcycle. One
Purushotham i.e., PW.2 accompanied PW.1. As they were
riding the motorcycle in the rubber plantation of Kolcharu
Purushothama, around 3.00 a.m., the accused persons
stopped the motorcycle, asked Purushothama to move
away from the place and then threatened PW.1 at the
point of a gun stating that they would kill him. The further
allegation was that PW.1 was knocked down from the
motor bike and the accused inflicted injuries on both the
eyes and lips. Accused Nos.1 and 3 are said to have held
the neck of PW.1 to kill him. Accused No.1 took a knife
and inflicted injury on the genital of PW.1. Seeing
Purushothama making telephone call to one Vijay Kumar,
all the accused left that place thinking that PW.1 was
dead. Thereafter PW.1 was taken to hospital where his
statement was recorded for registration of FIR.
NC: 2025:KHC:11849-DB
Investigation was held and thus the accused came to be
charge sheeted.
3. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and
produced 10 documents and 2 material objects to
establish its case. On appreciation of evidence, the trial
court recorded the findings that the evidence of PW.1 and
PW.2 cannot be believed because of previous enmity
between them and the accused. Both PW.1 and PW.2
were heavily drunk at the time when they were cooking in
the house of PW.3 in connection with the marriage. The
defence was that PW.1 fell down from the motorcycle,
there was a possibility of such a fall because PW.1 was
drunk. There was no believable evidence to show that
MO.1 and MO.2 were used for commission of the offences.
In view of inconsistency and contradictions in the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses, a doubt arises with regard to
the very incident and thus the accused would become
entitled to acquittal.
NC: 2025:KHC:11849-DB
4. Learned Government Pleader assails the
findings of the trial court by arguing that the existence of
enmity between two families is not in dispute and in that
connection, a panchayath had been held. PW.1
participated in the panchayath and spoke in favour of
PW.8 and this was the reason for the accused grudging
against PW.1. So far as incident is concerned, PW.1 has
given a good narration and injuries sustained by him finds
corroboration from the medical evidence. Two doctors
have stated about the injuries which PW.1 has also stated.
In this view it cannot be said that the evidence of PW.1
cannot be believed. Further PW.2 was very much present
at the time when the incident occurred. Standing at a
distance he saw the entire incident. He spoke in tandem
with PW.1. For this reason, the evidence of PW.2 cannot
be disbelieved. PW.3 stated that there was marriage in
his house and PW.1 as well as the accused had come for
cooking the food. PW.5 and PW.8 state that there is a
dispute with regard to pathway. Looked from any angle,
all the witnesses examined by the prosecution establish
NC: 2025:KHC:11849-DB
the incident. Therefore, there was no reason for the trial
court to acquit the accused.
5. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent
Nos.1 to 5 submits that the trial court has assessed the
evidence thoroughly. Finding inconsistency in the
evidence and taking into account the conduct of PW.1
especially in regard to registration of the complaint against
him on the allegation of making an attempt to outrage
modesty of wife of accused No.1, the evidence of PW.1
cannot be believed in the way he has given. There might
be support from PW.2, but the fact remains that they were
all drunk and riding the motorcycle in that condition.
Doctors have opined very clearly that there was a
possibility of happening of injuries when a person falls
from the motor bike. Moreover, the prosecution has not
produced vital evidence, i.e., blood stained lungi and
shorts of PW.1. For this reason, the prosecution case has
not stood established and therefore, there cannot be
interference with the acquittal judgment.
NC: 2025:KHC:11849-DB
6. We have given a re-look to the entire evidence.
It is true that PW.1 states about the panchayath having
been held to resolve the dispute between two families with
regard to pathway and speaking in favour of PW.8. His
evidence was that when he and PW.2 were returning in the
early hours of the day, he was threatened by the accused
and assaulted. His version is corroborated by PW.2, who
is shown to be an eye witness. It was in the house of
PW.3 that marriage had been arranged and he has spoken
that PW.1, PW.2 and accused had come for cooking the
food. But the evidence of PW.1 though finds support from
PW.2, it is difficult to believe for the reason that his
evidence with regard to bleeding injuries on his genital
cannot be believed in as much as two doctors have clearly
stated about other possibility of happening of that injury
when a person falls from the motorcycle. Both of them
were drunk. PW.1 has clearly stated that he had taken
drinks while cooking. PW.1 and PW.2 left the marriage
house early in the morning in the darkness. With regard to
NC: 2025:KHC:11849-DB
the injury on his genital, PW.1 stated that his knicker was
not torn because it was pulled down and then injury was
inflicted with a knife. But PW.2 has stated that the knicker
of PW.1 was torn. In this regard, the evidence is not
consistent. Moreover, as PW.1 sustained bleeding injuries
as has been stated by him, the investigating officer should
have seized blood stained clothes. No reason is
forthcoming for not seizing of those two clothes. The
evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 could have been believed if
blood stained clothes had been produced before the court.
This is not a trivial evidence to be ignored. The
submission of the government pleader that it is a
procedural lapse by the investigating officer cannot be
accepted because production of blood stained clothes
would have strengthened the prosecution case. In this
view of the matter, though the testimonies of PW.1 and
PW.2 appear to be supporting the prosecution, still a doubt
remains without answer because of non-production of
blood stained clothes. Since appeal is against acquittal
judgment, there cannot be interference unless there is
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11849-DB
perversity in appreciation of evidence. Because of the
reason that perversity is not forthcoming, we do not find
good reason to entertain the appeal. Therefore, appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
MBM
