Karnataka High Court
H Mallikarjunappa vs State By Srirampura Police on 17 November, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47070
CRL.RP No. 1542 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1542 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1 . H. MALLIKARJUNAPPA
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
2 . SRI H. RAJANNA
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
BOTH ARE AGRICULTURISTS,
R/AT SIRIGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 596.
...PETITIONERS
[BY SRI MANU SHANKAR S.S., ADVOCATE]
AND:
STATE BY SRIRAMPURA POLICE,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
Digitally signed CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 596.
by ANUSHA V REP BY S.P.P
Location: High ...RESPONDENTS
Court of
Karnataka [BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH N., HCGP]
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, C/C ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA DATED
21.03.2016 IN C.C.NO.294/2015 AND ALSO THE ORDER OF SPL. II
ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., CHITRADURGA DATED 21.11.2016 IN
CRL.A.NO.24/2016 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF TRIAL COURT AND
ACQUIT THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47070
CRL.RP No. 1542 of 2016
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 21.11.2016 passed by Spl. II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in
Crl.A.no.24/2016 confirming judgment dated 21.03.2016
passed by Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga, in CC
no.294/2015, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri Manu Shankar S.S., learned counsel for petitioners
submitted, this revision petition is by accused no.1 and 2,
challenging concurrent erroneous findings leading to conviction
of above accused for offences punishable under Sections 323,
447, 504 and 354 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860,
('IPC', of short).
3. It was submitted, as per prosecution case, at 11.30
a.m. on 18.12.2014 victim was working in house list no.95 in
Sirigondanahalli village of Hosadurga Taluk, when accused
arrived there and began quarreling with complainant abusing
him in foul language. At that time, accused no.1 pushed victim
to ground and assaulted him with club, while accused no.2 to 4
assaulted her with their hands and legs and tried to outrage her
NC: 2025:KHC:47070
HC-KAR
modesty and thereby committed offences punishable under
Sections 447, 323, 324, 354, 504 read with 34 of IPC and
complaint was filed at 8:00 pm on 19.12.2014. Same was
registered as Crime no.209/2014.
4. After investigation, prosecution filed charge sheet in
CC no.294/2015. Since accused pleaded not guilty, matter was
set for trial. Wherein, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and
Exhibits P1 to 8. It was submitted, in their statement recorded
under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC',
for short), accused denied material as false.
5. On consideration, trial Court acquitted accused no.3
and 4, but convicted accused no.1 and 2 for offences
punishable under Sections 323, 447, 504 and 354 read with
Section 34 of IPC, imposing sentence of simple imprisonment
for 3 months with pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for offence under
Section 323; simple imprisonment of one year with fine of
Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 354 and with fine of
Rs.2,000/- each for offence under Section 504 of IPC.
NC: 2025:KHC:47070
HC-KAR
6. Aggrieved by same, accused filed Crl.Appeal
no.24/2016. However, without proper consideration, same was
dismissed, leading to this revision petition.
7. It was submitted, in support of its charges,
prosecution examined nine witnesses. PW.1 was complainant,
PWs.2 and 3 were mahazar witnesses, PWs.4 to 7 were injured
witnesses, PW.8 was Doctor and PW.9 was Investigating Officer
('IO' for short). It was firstly submitted, impugned judgments
of conviction were based on deposition of interested witnesses.
In his cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that PW.2 was his
close friend and PW.3 was his relative. He also admitted that
incident occurred in public place in presence of 8-10 persons
including independent persons. Despite same, there was failure
to record their statements, casting doubt about prosecution
case.
8. It was submitted there was unexplained delay in filing
of complaint. Incident occurred at 11:30 am on 18.12.2014.
Complaint was filed more than 24 hours later at 8:30 pm
without proper explanation. Further, PW.1 admitted that PW.7
had informed doctors at Hospital about incident. And Police
NC: 2025:KHC:47070
HC-KAR
arrived within 2 hours on intimation by Hospital. Yet, there was
no explanation why PW.7 had not lodged complaint. Thus,
delay in filing complaint was unexplained and fatal.
9. It was submitted, PW.1 further admitted that there
was a hospital in Doddatekalakatti village at 2 Kms. distance,
likewise, at Mattodi about 5 Kms. away, at Kanchipura and
Srirampur at 15 Kms. distance. Yet, complainant along with
CWs.4 and 7 went to hospital at Hosadurga. It was submitted
that though suggestion that it was due to their relative being a
doctor in said hospital is denied, same cast grave doubt.
10. It was contended, as per Exs.P4 to P7, nature of
injuries sustained were simple, treated as out-patients.
Further, there was civil dispute between parties with regard to
vacant site bearing House List no.95 of Doddatekalakatti village
leading to filing of OS no.327/2013. In order to draw advantage
in said suit, false complaint was filed. It was contended, since
accused were in possession of property, there was no basis for
allegation of trespass. It was submitted, though above grounds
were duly canvassed before both Courts, there was no proper
consideration and sought for allowing revision petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:47070
HC-KAR
11. On other hand, Smt.N Anitha Girish, learned HCGP
opposed revision petition. It was submitted, both Courts have
taken note of prosecution material and having arrived at
concurrent conclusions that there was sufficient material to
convict accused and passed impugned orders. It was
submitted, grounds urged were untenable and revision petition
was liable for dismissal.
12. It was submitted, admittedly, complainant as well as
other victims had suffered injuries in incident and were under
treatment. And complaint was filed on next day after incident.
It was submitted, Exs.P4 to 7 contained particulars of injuries
sustained by complainant and other victims, which would
establish occurrence of incident. Therefore, nature of injuries as
simple would not lead to acquittal of accused. It was submitted,
PW.1 as well as PWs.4 to 7 were injured eye witnesses, who
had duly supported prosecution case in trial. Deposition of
injured eye witnesses would carry higher credibility and as
such, would constitute sufficient material for conviction. Hence,
no interference was warranted herein.
NC: 2025:KHC:47070
HC-KAR
13. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments
and record.
14. This revision petition is by accused no.1 and 2 against
concurrent judgments convicting them for offences punishable
under Sections 323, 447, 504 and 354 read with Section 34 of
IPC i.e. for voluntarily causing hurt, Criminal trespass,
intentional insult for provoking breach of peace and assault on
woman with intent to outrage her modesty. As noted above,
prosecution relied on nine witnesses and eight exhibits to bring
home charges.
15. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court referred
to deposition of PW-1, who narrated about incident that
occurred at 11:30 a.m., on 18.12.2014 in open space bearing
no.95, when complainant along with PW-7 were working,
accused no.1 arrived there and began abusing PW-7 in foul
language and assaulted her with hands and legs. And when
PWs-4 to 6 came to spot, even they were abused in foul
language and assaulted by accused causing them injuries.
Therefore, PWs-2 to 4 and 7 went to hospital for treatment and
thereafter, complaint was filed.
NC: 2025:KHC:47070
HC-KAR
16. It observed, though PW-1 admitted, PW2 was his
close friend and PWs-3 to 6 were relatives and PW-7 was his
mother and there existed civil dispute between parties with
regard to House site no.95, as well as about several complaints
having been filed between them, it observed only on that count
their deposition cannot be discarded. And since wound
certificates showed tenderness injuries, it acquitted accused of
offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and on ground
that accused no.3 and 4 were not residing with accused no.1
and 2, but were residents of difference village, it acquitted
accused no.3 and 4.
17. Appellate Court rejected challenge on ground of prior
civil litigation as well as claim of counter case on ground that
counter complaint was after filing of complaint by PW-1 herein
and civil suit was disposed of in year 2005 itself. It rejected
challenge on ground of delay in complaint after noticing
explanation in Ex.P1 - complaint.
18. Insofar as first contention about conviction being
based heavily on deposition of interested witnesses, Hon'ble
NC: 2025:KHC:47070
HC-KAR
Supreme Court in case of Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (2023) 13 SCC 365 has held:
"26. When the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to
be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles
enunciated by the courts are required to be
kept in mind:
26.1. The presence of an injured eyewitness at the
time and place of the occurrence cannot be
doubted unless there are material contradictions
in his deposition.
26.2. Unless, it is otherwise established by the
evidence, it must be believed that an injured
witness would not allow the real culprits to
escape and falsely implicate the accused.
26.3. The evidence of injured witness has greater
evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons
exist, their statements are not to be discarded
lightly.
26.4. The evidence of injured witness cannot be
doubted on account of some embellishment in
natural conduct or minor contradictions.
26.5. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial
embellishments in the evidence of an injured
witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration
or embellishment should be discarded from the
evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
26.6. The broad substratum of the prosecution version
must be taken into consideration and
discrepancies which normally creep due to loss
of memory with passage of time should be
discarded.
27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the
eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are
whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is
possible to believe their presence at the scene
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47070
HC-KAR
of occurrence or in such situations as would
make it possible for them to witness the facts
deposed to by them and secondly, whether
there is anything inherently improbable or
unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both
these considerations, circumstances either
elicited from those witnesses themselves or
established by other evidence tending to
improbabilise their presence or to discredit the
veracity of their statements, will have a bearing
upon the value which a court would attach to
their evidence. Although in cases where the
plea of the accused is a mere denial, the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be
examined on its own merits, where the accused
raise a definite plea or put forward a positive
case which is inconsistent with that of the
prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and
the probabilities in respect of it will also have to
be taken into account while assessing the value
of the prosecution evidence."
19. Admittedly order of conviction passed herein is based
on deposition of injured eye-witnesses. It is held in Balu
Sudam Khalde (supra), that deposition of injured eye
witnesses would attract higher credibility. Merely, on ground
that they are relatives or well known to complainant cannot be
sole ground to disbelieve them. When there is no contention
urged about their deposition suffering from grave inconsistency
or casting doubt about their presence at time of incident, order
of conviction would be justified.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47070
HC-KAR
20. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Goverdhan and
Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2025 INSC 47,
has held:
"25. At this point, it may be also relevant to mention
an observation made by Lord Denning, J. in
Miller v. Miller of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372,
373 H:
"That degree is well settled. It need not
reach certainty, but it must carry a high
degree of probability. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean proof
beyond the shadow of a doubt. The law
would fail to protect the community if it
admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the
court of justice...."
26. Thus, the requirement of law in criminal
trials is not to prove the case beyond all
doubt but beyond reasonable doubt and
such doubt cannot be imaginary, fanciful,
trivial or merely a possible doubt but a fair
doubt based on reason and common sense.
Hence, in the present case, if the allegations
against the appellants are held proved beyond
reasonable doubt, certainly conviction cannot be
said to be illegal."
(emphasis supplied)
21. In view of above, merely on ground that independent
witnesses were not examined, cannot be sole ground for
acquittal. It is also seen that in cross-examination of PW.9,
there is no suggestion made that non-examination of
independent witnesses was due to collusion with complainant.
Thus said contention would require rejection.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47070
HC-KAR
22. Insofar as delay in filing complaint, a bare perusal of
Ex.P1 - complaint/FIR reveals that complaint was given on
19.12.2014 at 8 p.m. But, in his deposition, complainant -
PW.1 has stated that after incident, he went to Govt. Hospital
at Hosadurga for treatment. Therefore, filing of complaint next
day cannot be stated to give rise to any grave doubt as to
upset conviction.
23. Insofar as contention that PWs1, 4 to 7 went to
hospital at Hosadurga, in order to secure wound certificate to
implicate accused for serious offences would be without
sufficient basis. Suggestion made about complainant's relative
being a doctor there, is denied and absence of doctors at
village hospitals would be sufficient explanation.
24. Insofar as contention that Exs.P4 to P7 would show
injuries as simple, indicating that without any actual injuries,
false complaint was filed, would also not stand to reason as
Doctor, who has issued wound certificate deposed about
injuries noted in detail and nothing material is elicited during
cross-examination of Doctor examined as PW-8, except about
nature of injuries being simple. It is seen that trial Court has
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47070
HC-KAR
rightly appreciated same and acquitted accused of offence
under Section 324 of IPC.
25. Insofar as existence of earlier civil dispute between
parties as motive for filing of false complaint, it is noted by
Appellate Court that OS no.66/2004 was disposed of in year
2005 itself.
26. It is seen, deposition of PWs.1, 3 to 7 is consistent
insofar as occurrence of incident at 8 p.m. on 18.12.2014.
PWs.2 and 3 - witnesses have supported prosecution and
wooden club is seized as MO.1 and Exs.P4 to P7 would establish
their sustaining injuries in incident. Taking note of trial Court
convicted accused herein and first appellate Court has
confirmed same in appeal, when said findings are not
established to be suffering from perversity or as being contrary
to provisions of law, there would be no scope for interference in
revision. Hence, revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
Psg*/AV/GRD
