Sri Kantharaju vs State By Kyathasandra Police Station
2025 Latest Caselaw 9874 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri Kantharaju vs State By Kyathasandra Police Station on 6 November, 2025

                                               -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC:44895
                                                        CRL.A No. 518 of 2013


                   HC-KAR




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                          BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 518 OF 2013 (C)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   SRI. KANTHARAJU
                        S/O LATE NAGARAJU,
                        AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

                   2.   SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI
                        W/O SRI KANTHARAJU,
                        AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

                   3.   SMT. PARVATHAMMA
                        W/O LATE NAGARAJU,
                        AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

                        APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE
                        R/O VITTARAVUTHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
                        ORDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK,
Digitally signed
by SUMA B N             TUMKUR DISTRICT.
Location: HIGH                                                  ...APPELLANTS
COURT OF           (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA H V.,ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
                   AND:

                   STATE BY KYATHASANDRA POLICE STATION
                   KYATHASANDRA CIRCLE,
                   KYATHASANDRA,TUMKUR
                                                               ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)
                        THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
                   SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
                   DATED 20.04.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. & S.J., TUMKUR
                   IN S.C.NO.233/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/
                              -2-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC:44895
                                       CRL.A No. 518 of 2013


HC-KAR



ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 435 AND 504 OF IPC AND
ETC.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                     ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellants have preferred this appeal against the

judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by

the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in

SC No.233/2012 dated 20.04.2013.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings

before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal is

that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kyathasandra Police

Station, submitted the charge sheet against the accused

for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307,

435, 504 and 34 IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that

on 30.11.2011 at about 07.00 a.m. near the petty shop of

CW1-Kamalamma situated in Vittaravutanahalli village,

NC: 2025:KHC:44895

HC-KAR

Ordigere Hobli, the accused No.3 Parvathamma, on

account of previous ill-will, in furtherance of their common

object, intentionally insulted CW1-Kamalamma by using

filthy language and thereby gave provocation to her,

intending that such provocation would cause PW1 to break

public peace. Further it is alleged that accused having

common intention, accused No.3 shouted to set fire to

Lakshmidevi poured kerosene to the Oppara in front of the

petty shop and accused No.1 Kantharaju set fire with

intent to cause damage and caused damage to the Oppara

and thereby caused loss to an extent of Rs.1000/- to

CW.1. Further it is alleged that the accused Nos. 1 to 3

with their common object to cause death of CW1, the

accused No.3 asked to set fire to CW1, the accused No. 2

poured kerosene and accused No.1 tried to set fire and by

that act accused Nos. 1 to 3 had caused the death to CW1.

They would have been guilty of murder. Thereby

committed an offence punishable under Sections 504, 435,

NC: 2025:KHC:44895

HC-KAR

307 r/w 34 IPC. After filing the charge sheet, the case was

registered in CC No. 1035/2012. Thereafter, case was

committed to the Court of Sessions and case was

registered in SC No.233/2012. The accused were enlarged

on bail.

4. On hearing the charges, the trial Court has

framed the charges for commission of offences punishable

under Sections 435, 504 and 307 r/w Section 34 IPC.

Same was read over and explained to the accused. Having

understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution

has examined six witnesses as PW1 to PW6 and six

documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. Eight material

objects were marked as MO No.1 to MO.8. On closure of

prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 of

Cr.PC was recorded. Accused have totally denied evidence

NC: 2025:KHC:44895

HC-KAR

of prosecution witnesses. But they have not chosen to led

any evidence on their behalf.

6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, trial

court has acquitted the accused for the offence under

Section 307 r/w 34 IPC. However, convicted the accused

for the offence under Sections 435, 504 r/w 34 IPC and

sentenced appellants to undergo simple imprisonment for

a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000 each and in

default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo

simple imprisonment for one month for the offence

punishable under Section 435 r/w Section 34 of IPC. They

shall further undergo for simple imprisonment for one year

and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each in default of payment of

fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days

for the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w Section

34 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction

and order on sentence, the appellants have preferred this

appeal.

NC: 2025:KHC:44895

HC-KAR

7. Sri. Manjunatha H.V learned counsel for the

appellants would submit that trial Court has not properly

appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law

and on facts. According to the case of the prosecution PW2

and PW3 are the eye witnesses. Both have turned hostile

and not supported the case of the prosecution. PW4 is the

mahazar witness. PW5 is the IO. Only on the basis of sole

interested testimony of PW1, trial Court has convicted the

accused, which is not sustainable under law. The PW1 was

having enmity towards the accused for the reason that the

accused No.1 being the husband of the PW1 has deserted

her as she has demanded for partition in the property. The

prosecution has not produced any document to show that

the petty shop belongs to PW1. IO has not explained

anything as to non production of the relevant documents

in this regard. Absolutely, there is no cogent,

corroborative, clinching and trustworthy evidence to

convict the accused. However, the trial Court has

NC: 2025:KHC:44895

HC-KAR

convicted the accused which is not sustainable under law

and on all these grounds sought for allowing of the appeal.

8. Sri. B. Lakshman, learned HCGP would submit

that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence

on record in accordance with law and facts. Absolutely

there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned

judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by

the trial Court and on all these grounds sought for

dismissal of this appeal.

9. I have examined the materials placed before

this Court and also heard the arguments on both sides.

10. The following points would arise for my

consideration.

"1. Whether the Appellants have made out a grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court.

2. What order?"

11. My answer to the above points are as under;

Point No.1 in the affirmative.

NC: 2025:KHC:44895

HC-KAR

Point No.2 is as per final order.

12. I have examined the materials placed before

this Court. The genesis of the case is arise out of the

complaint filed by the PW1-Kamalamma, wife of

Kantharaja. The contents of the complaint reads as under;

"UÉ,

¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¸À¨ï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï PÁåvÀìAzÀæ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ PÁåvÀìAzÀæ.

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,

PÀªÀÄ®ªÀÄä w/o PÁAvÀgÁd, 25 ªÀµÀð, MPÀÌ°UÀgÀ d£ÁAUÀ, «lÖgÁªÀÅvÀ£ÀºÀ½î ªÁ¹, HrðUÉgÉ ºÉÆç½, vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ §gɹPÉÆlÖ zÀÆgÀÄ.

£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤ÃrzÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ ªÁ¹AiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÀÄä°è ªÀÄ£À« ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ FUÉÎ 2003£Éà E¸À«AiÀÄ°è vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÄÀ , HrðUÉgÉ ºÉÆç½, «lÖgÁªÀÅvÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¯ÉÃ|| £ÁUÀgÁdÄgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ PÁAvÀgÁd JA§ÄªÀªÀ£À£ÀÄß JgÀqÀ£Éà ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, FUÉÎ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ PÉÊ PÁ®ÄUÀ¼ÄÀ ¸Áé¢Ã£À E®èzÀAvÁV £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£ÀUÉ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¸É ¤Ãr ªÀģɬÄAzÀ DZÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¢zÀÄ, 32 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ «lÖgÁªÀÅvÀ£ÀºÀ½î PÁæ¸ï£À°è ¥ÀnÖUÉ CAUÀrAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 08.11.2011 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£Àß ¥ÀnÖUÉ CAUÀr §½ MAzÀÄ PÉlÖ PÉlÖ ªÀiÁvÀÄUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¸É ¤Ãr ¤Ã£ÀÄ HgÀÄ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃUÀ¢zÀÝgÉ PÉÆ¯É ªÀÄqÀĪÀÅzÁV ¥Áæt¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÀÄÝ, CzÉà ¢£À PÁåvÀìAzÀæ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉUÉ MAzÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É PÉøÀÄ zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄvÉÛ. EzÉà zÉéõÀªÀ£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 30.11.2011 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 7 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ 7 ªÀµÀðzÀ ¸ÀÄgÉÃ±ï ¥ÀnÖUÉ CAUÀrAiÀÄ°èzÁÝUÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ PÁAvÀgÁd £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À »jAiÀÄ ºÉAqÀw ®QëöäzÉë ºÁUÀÆ £À£ßÀ CvÉÛ ¥ÁªÀðvÀªÀÄägÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ J®ègÀÆ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¸ÀƼɪÀÄÄAqÉ ¨ÉÆýªÀÄÄAqÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä HgÀÄ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ JAvÀ ºÉýzÀgÀÆ PÉüÀzÉà £ÀªÄÀ äUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥ÉưøïoÁuÉAiÀÄ°è PÉøÀÄ ºÁQ¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄ£É ¨sÁUÀ PÉÆqÀÄ CAvÀ PÉüÀÄwÛÃAiÀÄAvÀ CªÁåZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀgÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ºÁQgÀĪÀ PÉøÀ£ÄÀ ß ªÁ¥Á¸ï vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ HgÀÄ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ CAvÀ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ. £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAvÀ ºÉýzÀÝPÉÌ £À£Àß CvÉÛ ¥ÁªÀðw K£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛgÉÆà ¹ÃªÉÄJuÉÚAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁQ CªÀ¼À CAUÀrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄlÄÖ ºÁQgÉÆà CAvÀ ºÉý DUÀ £À£ßÀ UÀAqÀ£À »jAiÀÄ ºÉAqÀw ®QëöäzÉë vÀ£Àß PÉÊAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ ¹ÃªÉÄJuÉÚ PÁå£ï£À°èzÝÀ ¹ÃªÉÄJuÉÚAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ¥ÉnÖUÉ CAUÀr ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ ZÀ¥ÀàgÀPÉÌ ¹ÃªÉÄJuÉÚAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JgÀazÀ¼ÀÄ DUÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ZÀ¥ÀàgÀPÉÌ ¨ÉAQ ElÖ£ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ PÀÆVPÉÆAqÁUÀ £À£Àß CvÉÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£ßÀ UÀAqÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ EªÀ¼À£ÀÄß E°èAiÉÄà ¸ÀÄlÄÖ

NC: 2025:KHC:44895

HC-KAR

ºÁPÉÆÃt JAvÀ ºÉý ®QëöäzÉë £À£Àß ªÉÄʪÉÄÃ¯É ¹ÃªÉÄJuÉÚ ¸ÀÄjzÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ßÀ UÀAqÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉAQ ºÀZÀÑ®Ä §AzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÀÆVPÉÆAqÉ DUÀ £ÀªÀÄä UÁæªÄÀ zÀ gÁªÀÄtÚ£À ºÉAqÀw C£ÀĸÀÆAiÀĪÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁªÀÄzÁ¸ÀAiÀÄågÀªÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ©r¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ®QëöäzÉëAiÀÄ PÉÊAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ ¹ÃªÉÄJuÉÚ qÀ§âªÀ£ÀÄß QvÀÄÛPÉÆAqÀÄ §Ä¢Ý ºÉý PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ GjAiÀÄÄwÛzÝÀ ZÀ¥àÀgÀzÀ ¨ÉAQAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁj¹zÀgÀÄ. EzÀjAzÀ CAUÀr ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ ZÀ¥ÀàgÀ ¸ÀÄlÄÖ CAUÀr ªÀÄÄA¨sÁzÀ ZÀ¥ÀàgÀ ¸ÀÄnÖgÀÄvÉÛ. £À£Àß ¥ÉnÖUÉ CAUÀr ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ ZÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¸ÀÄlÄÖ ºÁQ £À£ÀUÉ CªÁåZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉÄÊ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¹ÃªÉÄJuÉÚ ¸ÀÄjzÀÄ PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀߥÀlÄÖ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£ÀUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÀå PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÀAvÀ vÀªÀÄä°è PÉýPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ."

13. PW1 has reiterated averments made in the

complaint in her deposition and has also deposed as to the

mahazar conducted by the police as per Ex.P2.

14. PW2 Ramdasappa and PW3 Anusuyamma said

to be the eyewitness. They have not supported the case of

the prosecution. Both witnesses were treated as hostile

witnesses. In their cross- examination, they have

categorically denied the statement recorded by the IO

under Section 161 of Cr.PC which are marked as Ex.P3

and Ex.P4.

15. PW4 Nagaraju has deposed regarding the

mahazar conducted by the police as per Ex.P2. This

witness is also not fully supported to the case of the

prosecution and he was treated as partly hostile witness.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44895

HC-KAR

16. PW5 and PW6 have deposed in their evidence

as to their respective Investigation.

17. From careful examination of the entire evidence

placed before this Court it is crystal clear that

Investigating Officer has not produced any documents to

show that the petty shop belongs to PW1. The

Investigating Officer has not collected any materials to

show that this petty shop belongs to PW1. The I.O has not

explained anything as to non-production of said material

piece of evidence before the Court. Admittedly, the

complainant -PW1 is the second wife of the accused No. 1.

The averments of the complaint itself reveals that the

accused have picked up a quarrel with her stating that she

being the second wife of accused No.1 demanding partition

of the property before the Police. This averments made in

the complaint itself reveals that there is an enmity

between the complainant and the accused regarding the

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44895

HC-KAR

property belongs to accused No.1. When there is enmity

between the complainant and the accused, it is quite

common to depose against the accused. This interested

testimony of PW1 has not been corroborated with the

independent witnesses. Though the I.O has cited the

independent witnesses as eyewitness both have not

supported to the case of the prosecution. Even during the

course of cross-examination by the prosecution with the

permission of the court, the prosecution has failed to elicit

any favourable answers from them to substantiate the

case of the prosecution. Viewed from any angle, I do not

find any cogent, corroborative, clinching, trustworthy

evidence before this Court to convict the accused for the

alleged commission of offences.

18. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the

evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. For

the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that

the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answered the point

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44895

HC-KAR

No.1 in the affirmative. Point number 2, for the aforesaid

reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed.

ii. The judgment of conviction and order on

sentence passed by the Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Tumkur in SC No.233/2012

dated 20.04.2013 is set aside.

iii. Accused/appellants are acquitted for the offence

punishable under Sections 435, 504 r/w 34 IPC.

iv. The trial Court is directed to refund the fine

amount if any deposited by the accused.

v. Send the copy of this judgment along with the

TCR to the trial court.

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

RU