Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Sammandsab Fakruddinsab Tumminakatti on 2 May, 2025
-1-
CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100547 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE RATTIHALLI P.S.,
DIST: HAVERI, THROUGH THE
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SAMMANDSAB FAKRUDDINSAB TUMMINAKATTI
AGE: 62 YEARS.
2. SHOUKATHALI S/O. SAMMANDSAB TUMMINAKATTI
AGE: 32 YEARS.
3. LIYAKATHA S/O. SAMMANDSAB TUMMINAKATTI
AGE: 27 YEARS.
4. HAJARATHALLI S/O. SAMMANDSAB TUMMINKATTI
AGE: 34 YEARS.
5. RAHIMANSAB S/O. IBRAHIMSAB SHETSANADI
AGE: 55 YEARS.
6. SHIRAJ S/O. IBRAHIMSAB SHETSANDI
AGE: 47 YEARS.
7. NOORAHAMMAD S/O. IBRAHIMSAB SHETSANADI
AGE: 40 YEARS.
-2-
CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022
8. MUSTAFA S/O. IBRAHIMSAB SHETSANADI
AGE: 40 YEARS.
9. AMMERSAB S/O. IBRAHIMSAB SHETSANADI
AGE: 42 YEARS.
10. SADIQ @ SOORAJ S/O. REHAMAMSAB SHETSANADI
AGE: 42 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O. KIRGERI,
TQ: HIREKERUR-581111.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 (1) AND (3) OF
CRPC SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 16.01.2020 PASSED
BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING
AT RANEBENNUR), S.C.NO.07/2017 AND TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 16.01.2020 PASSED
BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING
AT RANEBENNUR) IN S.C. NO. 07/2017 AND CONVICT THE
RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 307, 447, 504, AND 506
R/W 149 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
22.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-3-
CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned appeal is by the State assailing the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.01.2020 passed
by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri
(sitting at Ranebennur) in S.C.No.7/2017, wherein the
learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the
respondents/accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 307, 447, 504 and
506 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as
under:
On 24.04.2014 at about 2.00 p.m. while C.Ws.6 to
17 were cultivating the land bearing Sy.No.21 of Kirageri
village, the accused all of a sudden in furtherance of
common object formed an unlawful assembly with deadly
weapons, trespassed the land, started quarrel with regard
to partition of the properties. It is further alleged that
accused No.2 abused the complainant, C.Ws.6 to 12 in
filthy language. It is further allege that accused No.2
CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022
assaulted with hands and knife on C.W.7. Accused Nos.1
and 2 assaulted C.W.12 with tones, while accused Nos.5
and 6 assaulted C.W.8 with legs, and accused Nos.7 and 8
assaulted C.W.9 with hands. It is alleged that accused
No.8 assaulted C.W.10 with legs, while accused No.10
assaulted C.W.11 with hands. It is alleged that C.Ws.6 and
7 were threatened by accused with dire consequence and
attempted to commit the murder.
3. A crime came to be registered. The Investigating
Officer undertook the investigation and laid charge sheet.
On receipt of charge sheet, the charges were framed. The
accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. In
order to prove the charges leveled against the accused,
the prosecution in all examined 18 witnesses, marked 15
documents as Exs.P1 to P15. M.Os.1 to 4 were marked.
4. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the
statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is
recorded. The accused denied the incriminating evidence
and have not chosen to lead defence evidence. They
produced the documents relating to the pendency of the
CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022
suit between the accused and the complainant. The
learned Sessions Judge after conclusion of the trial,
hearing the prosecution as well as counsel for the accused
acquitted the accused. The said judgment and order of
acquittal is assailed in the captioned appeal.
5. The learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor
(SPP), reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum
of appeal, vehemently argued that the prosecution, having
examined 18 material witnesses and produced documents
marked as Exhibits P1 to P15 and Material Objects M.Os.1
to 4, has successfully established the guilt of the accused.
He pointed out that C.W.1 has clearly supported the
prosecution's case, and that the individual overt acts of
each of the accused have been specifically substantiated
through the eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution.
He thus contended that the order of acquittal suffers from
perversity. He further submitted that P.Ws.5 and 6, who
were grievously injured in the assault by the accused,
were taken to the hospital, and that these injured
witnesses have provided a detailed account of the
CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022
individual roles of each accused. Their testimony is also
corroborated by P.Ws.10, 12, and 13, who witnessed the
incident and intervened to pacify the dispute between the
complainant's family and the accused. The learned
Sessions Judge, he argued, has ignored this crucial
evidence, and therefore, the order of acquittal warrants
interference by this Court.
6. The learned Additional SPP also relied upon the
medical evidence adduced through P.Ws.14 and 15, the
doctors who examined the injured witnesses. He
emphasized that although the defense counsel cross-
examined all the prosecution witnesses extensively,
nothing material was elicited to discredit the versions of
the eyewitnesses and the injured witnesses. Consequently,
he contended that the judgment of acquittal is
unsustainable and requires interference by this Court.
7. In support of his contentions, the learned
Additional SPP placed reliance on various judgments in
support of his contention that the testimony of injured
witnesses must be given special weight, as the injuries
CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022
sustained by them corroborate their presence at the scene
of the crime. He submitted that the evidence of such
witnesses cannot be easily discarded. Therefore, he
argued, the Sessions Court's rejection of this material
evidence has resulted in a miscarriage of justice,
necessitating interference by this Court.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
accused argued that the judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the Sessions Court is in accordance with law
and does not warrant interference. He contended that
there is absolutely no incriminating material against the
accused to justify a conviction. He further argued that the
registration of the case at the instance of the complainant
and his family was a motivated act intended to usurp the
accused's right and title over the disputed land. It was
submitted that what is essentially a civil dispute has been
deliberately converted into a criminal case, and therefore,
the order of acquittal should be upheld.
CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022
9. Heard the learned Additional SPP for the State
and the learned counsel appearing for
respondents/accused.
10. The following point would arise for our
consideration:
"Whether the judgment and order of
acquittal thereby acquitting the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
148, 323, 324, 341, 307, 447, 504 and 506 r/w
Section 149 of IPC suffers from perversity and
warrant interference at the hands of this court?
Finding on the point.
11. The prosecution's specific case is that on
24.04.2014 at about 2:00 p.m., while prosecution
witnesses C.Ws.6 to 17 were cultivating the land bearing
Sy.No.21 of Kirageri Village, the accused persons, sharing
a common object, unlawfully assembled and thereby
committed offences punishable under Sections 143 read
with 141 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
12. C.W.1, who is the complainant, deposed that at
around 12:00 noon on the date of incident, accused Nos.1
CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022
to 10 unlawfully trespassed onto the disputed land and
began abusing C.W.1 and his family members using filthy
language. They allegedly obstructed a tractor that was
being operated on the field. During this altercation,
accused No.2 is said to have assaulted C.W.7 with a knife,
while accused Nos.1 and 3 allegedly assaulted C.W.12 with
stones. It was further stated that accused No.4 assaulted
C.W.6, and accused Nos.5 and 6 attacked C.W.8. The
complainant also alleged that C.W.9 was assaulted by
accused No.2 and C.W.10 was assaulted by accused No.9.
However, during cross-examination, C.W.1 admitted that
he had been residing at Shikaripura for the past 30 years,
which is approximately 30 kilometers away from the scene
of the incident. It was further elicited during cross-
examination that around seven of his family members had
traveled from Davanagere by bikes and an auto-rickshaw.
It was admitted that apart from C.W.1, C.Ws.6 to 12, and
the accused persons, no independent witnesses were
present at the scene. Importantly, cross-examination
revealed that there was no mention of Nurulla (C.W.7)
- 10 -
CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022
sustaining bleeding injuries due to the alleged knife attack
by accused No.2. Furthermore, a long-standing civil
dispute between the complainant's family and the
accused's family was acknowledged.
13. Though the prosecution asserts that C.W.7
sustained bleeding injuries due to a knife attack by
accused No.2, the wound certificate (Ex.P9) shows that
C.W.7 only suffered simple injuries. Thus, the allegation of
a serious attack with a knife by accused No.2 is not
substantiated either by C.W.7's testimony or by that of
C.W.1, the primary eyewitness and complainant.
14. C.W.7, examined as P.W.6, failed to identify
M.O.4 (the material object allegedly used in the assault).
Moreover, the wound certificates (Exs.P9 and P10) clearly
establish that C.W.7 suffered only simple injuries. A
deeper examination of the testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 5,
and 6 reveals that none of these witnesses were residents
of Kirageri village, where the incident allegedly took place.
Their presence at the crime scene is, therefore,
questionable. It has been brought out during cross-
- 11 -
CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022
examination that C.Ws.4, 9, and 12 traveled from
Davanagere by bus, while C.W.7 himself stated he came
from Shikaripura. The circumstances under which these
persons, who are not residents of the village, gathered at
Kirageri village on the date of the incident, especially when
a civil dispute was pending between the parties, casts
significant doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case.
15. C.W.6, examined as P.W.6, stated that he and
other witnesses were ploughing the field when, around
1:30 p.m., the accused arrived, abused them, and caused
a commotion. He deposed that his brother, C.W.7, was
assaulted by accused No.2 with a knife when he tried to
intervene and that he himself was assaulted by accused
No.4 with a stone. During cross-examination, however,
C.W.6 denied any knowledge of a relinquishment deed
related to the land, an important fact in the ongoing civil
dispute.
16. C.W.8, examined as P.W.7, deposed that
accused No.2 assaulted C.W.7 with a knife and that
accused No.4 assaulted C.W.7 with a stone. He further
- 12 -
CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022
stated that accused Nos.5 and 6 abused him in filthy
language and physically assaulted him.
17. C.W.9, examined as P.W.8, testified that he
knew C.W.1 and was aware of the existing civil dispute. He
similarly alleged that accused No.2 assaulted C.W.7 with a
knife and that accused No.4 assaulted C.W.7 with a stone.
He further stated that accused Nos.5 and 6 abused C.W.8
and that accused Nos.7 and 8 assaulted and kicked him.
18. The evidence of C.W.10, C.W.12, C.W.11,
C.W.14, and C.W.15 is identical in material particulars.
They all stated that the accused persons came to the field
at around 1:00 p.m. and assaulted them. However, it is
significant to note that all these witnesses are closely
related to the complainant and, therefore, have an evident
vested interest in the outcome of the case.
19. The doctors who treated the alleged injured
persons were examined as P.W.14 and P.W.15. P.W.14
stated that on 24.04.2014 at about 2:30 p.m., C.Ws.1, 6
to 11 presented themselves for treatment. He found that
- 13 -
CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022
C.W.8 and C.W.7 had only simple injuries, the age of
which was less than 24 hours. Radiological examinations
(X-rays) showed no fractures or internal injuries. During
cross-examination, P.W.14 admitted that such injuries
could have occurred due to contact with a hard object
rather than a knife.
20. C.W.19, examined as P.W.15, deposed that at
around 5:50 p.m. on 24.04.2014, C.W.6 and C.W.7 were
referred to him for further examination. He stated that
C.W.7 was examined in the Surgery Department and
reiterated that the injuries were simple in nature.
21. The prosecution case lacks support from any
independent eyewitnesses. The overt acts allegedly
committed by the accused, as stated by the complainant
and other witnesses during investigation, are not
corroborated by the medical evidence contained in the
wound certificates. The records clearly reveal the
existence of longstanding rival claims over the disputed
land, and it is evident that the complainant and accused
are closely related, being cousins, who have been litigating
- 14 -
CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022
in civil court. The bitterness and acrimonious relations
between the two families were thoroughly exposed during
cross-examination. In light of the fact that the wound
certificates disclose only simple injuries, and given that
the overt acts attributed to each accused are not reliably
substantiated, serious doubts arise regarding the
prosecution's case. On a holistic evaluation, it appears that
the criminal proceedings may have been initiated as a
retaliatory measure stemming from the civil dispute
pending between the parties.
22. The appeal being devoid of merits and liable to
be dismissed. Hence, we answer the point in the negative
and accordingly, proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The criminal appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
MBS/Ct:vh
