Karnataka High Court

Ajjaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2025

Author: Ravi V Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V Hosmani

                                                 -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC:45527
                                                          CRL.RP No. 827 of 2017


                    HC-KAR


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                          DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
                                                BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
                         CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 827 OF 2017
                   BETWEEN:
                   1.    AJJAIAH
                         S/O SOORAPPA,
                         AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

                   2.    RAVI
                         S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA,
                         AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

                         BOTH ARE AGRICULTURISTS,
                         R/AT ALAGAVADI VILLAGE,
                         BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI,
                         CHITRADURGA TALUK AND
                         DISTRICT - 577 519.
                                                                   ...PETITIONERS
                   [BY SRI JAGRUTH S., ADVOCATE FOR
                       SRI RAHUL RAI K, ADVOCATE (PH)]
                   AND:
                         THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed         THROUGH BHARAMASAGARA POLICE STATION,
by ANUSHA V              CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
                         REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Location: High           HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Court of                 BANGALORE - 560 001.
Karnataka                                                          ...RESPONDENT
                   [BY SMT. N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP (PH)]
                         THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
                   ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
                   COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
                   DATED 13.7.2017 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL, 2ND ADDITIONAL
                   DISTRICT     AND   SESSIONS    JUDGE,   CHITRADURGA   IN
                   CRL.A.NO.35/2015 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
                   15.7.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
                   J.M.F.C., CHITRADURGA IN C.C.NO.2092/2009, IN SO FAR AS
                   PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.
                                         -2-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC:45527
                                                  CRL.RP No. 827 of 2017


HC-KAR



    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI


                                  ORAL ORDER

Challenging judgment dated 13.07.2017 passed by Spl. II

Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in

Crl.A.no.35/2015, confirming judgment of conviction and order

of sentence dated 15.07.2015 passed by II Addl. Civil Judge &

JMFC., Chitradurga, in C.C.no.2092/2009, this revision petition

is filed by accused no.1 and 2.

2. Sri Jagruth S, learned counsel for petitioner

submitted, revision petition was against concurrent erroneous

findings convicting petitioners (accused no.1 and 2) for

offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 353, 504 r/w

Section 149 of IPC. It was submitted prosecution case was that

one Gopya Naik - forest officer, Davanagere Range, lodged a

complaint on 08.08.2009 at 7.30 p.m. stating that when he

along with other staff were on patrol duty near Neerthadi Forest

area, they found accused no.1 and 2 along with other accused

persons were proceeding in a tractor-trailer with load of

firewood. When they apprehended them, accused no.1 called

NC: 2025:KHC:45527

HC-KAR

villagers over phone whereupon 3 to 21 accused persons

rushed to spot with clubs etc., assaulted complainant and his

staff, thereby committed aforesaid offences. Upon conclusion of

investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused for

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324,

332, 353 and 504 r/w Section 149 of IPC.

3. On appearance and denying charges, accused sought

trial. To substantiate charges, prosecution examined 10

witnesses as PWs.1 to PW.10, Exhibits P1 to P15(a) and MOs 1

and 2 were got marked.

4. On appraisal of incriminating circumstances, which

was denied by accused, trial Court recorded same under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused did not lead any rebuttal

evidence.

5. On consideration, trial Court convicted accused no.1

to 3 and 7 for offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 353

and 504 of IPC and acquitted of other offences. Aggrieved,

accused no.1, 2 and 7 preferred Crl.A.no.35/2015; accused

no.3 filed Crl.A.no.37/2015. But, appeals were dismissed.

NC: 2025:KHC:45527

HC-KAR

6. Aggrieved, accused no.1 and 2 have preferred this

revision petition. It was submitted, this Court in Crl.RP

no.811/2017 c/w 856/2017 filed by accused no.3 and 7 allowed

same by setting aside conviction. While passing said judgment,

this Court had made observations about failure of prosecution

to establish charges Said finding would be common against all

accused, therefore petitioners were entitled for parity.

7. On other hand, Smt.N.Anitha Girish, learned HCGP for

respondent opposed revision petition. It was submitted, trial

Court on detailed examination of material on record convicted

accused. Same was confirmed in appeal. Therefore, finding

against accused were concurrent and does not call for

interference in this revision petition.

8. Heard learned counsel and perused material on

record.

9. This revision is against concurrent finding by accused

no.1 and 2. As noted, order of acquittal passed by trial Court

insofar as accused other than accused no.1, 3 and 7 has

attained finality. At time of passing said order, trial Court

observed that since incident had occurred in darkness,

NC: 2025:KHC:45527

HC-KAR

prosecution witnesses were unable to identify accused who had

committed assault. It observed specific overt acts of accused

were not deposed about. Further this Court while allowing in

Crl.RP.no.811/2017 and connected matter has also made

observations in para no.18 to 23, as under:

"18. On careful examination of the entire evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the investigating officer has not produced any documents to show that PWs1,4,5,6 and 7 were on duty and he has not explained anything as to the non-production of material piece of evidence and also not produced any document to show that they have deputed to duty in the forest area, but Ex.P3 - attendance certificate in which the Forest Range Officer has certified that on 08.08.2009 at 8.00 p.m., the officials of Davangere forest range namely, Sri. V. Radhakrishna, Sri. G.R.Madhusudhana, Sri. Kotyanayaka and Sri. Ramanayaka have discharged their duties. But the investigating officer has not collected the attendance register extracts and movement register extracts maintained by the concerned department. In the absence of these material piece of evidence, it is not just and proper to say that the aforesaid officials were deputed to duty at relevant point of time. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Nos.1, 3 and 7 have committed the offence punishable under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code.

19. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused Nos.4 to 6 and 8 to 21. But the State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of acquittal against the said accused. It is the specific case of the prosecution that all the accused formed into unlawful assembly holding forest produce (kaadujaatikattige) in their hands and abused the forest officials in filthy language. Thus, the accused have committed offence as alleged by the prosecution. When the prosecution has failed to

NC: 2025:KHC:45527

HC-KAR

prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 320, 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 332 and 353 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, the question of committing the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 353

and 7 does not arise. However, this Court has carefully examined the evidence of prosecution against the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 353 and 504 of Indian Penal Code.

20. With regard to the offence under Section 323,324 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, Ex.P1 - complaint reveals that all the accused i.e. accused Nos.1 to 21 are involved in the alleged incident and it is silent about the assault made by accused Nos.1, 3 and 7. Admittedly, PW.1 is not an eyewitness. PW4 and PW5 have clearly deposed in their evidence at the time of galata as there is dark and not specifically stated who has assaulted to whom. PWs6 and 7 have also clearly admitted that they have not identified the accused as there is dark and other witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. The alleged incident took place on 08.8.2009 at about 7.30 p.m. and the complaint came to be filed on 09.08.2009 at about 2.00 p.m. and First Information Report was submitted to the Court on 10.10.2009 at 11.00 a.m. The prosecution has not explained anything as to the delay in filing the complaint and also submission of First Information Report to the Court.

21. In Ex.P1 - complaint, it is stated that PWs.1 and 4 to 7 are the staff and they have identified the said accused. But in this regard, absolutely there is no evidence at the instance of whom the accused Nos.1 to 21 have inserted as accused in the alleged complaint. It is the case of prosecution that when the forest officials have apprehended the accused No.1 along with tractor which was loaded with forest produce, this incident has taken place. The investigating officer has not produced any document to show that the forest officials have not conducted mahazar and register the case against accused Ajjaiah and others for the commission of

NC: 2025:KHC:45527

HC-KAR

offence under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 for transporting the forest produce at relevant point of time. First of all, the forest authorities have registered the case against the driver of the offending tractor and others for the commission of alleged offence. But in this regard, no material was produced by the prosecution. When they have seized the offending tractor in accordance with relevant Act and Rules, the question of preventing the forest officials from discharging their duties does not arise.

22. With regard to the assault of the injured persons are concerned, the prosecution has produced Ex.P11 to 14 and the said wound certificates belongs to one V. Radhakrishna, G.R.Madhusudhana, Kotyanayaka and Ramanayaka. This contents of wound certificate and also evidence of PW.10 - doctor does not reveals as to the names of the accused who have assaulted to the above injured persons. If really the injured persons who have examined before Court have identified the accused at relevant point of time, they would have revealed the names of accused, but they have done so. The wound certificate reveals that these injured persons came with a history of assault only and that there are no external injuries found on the body of the injured persons. If really the accused have assaulted to these injured persons with M.O.1 - forest produce (kaadujaatikattige), the said injured would have sustained with grievous injuries and also sustained fracture but no such injuries are found on injured persons.

23. Ex.P2 - spot panchanama reveals that the investigating officer has conducted mahazar between 4.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. on 09.8.2009 and has recorded the statements of Gowdara Gopalappa, Murugendrappa, Radhakrishna, Madhusudhana, Kotyanayaka and Ramanayaka as per Exs.P4, 5,7,8,9 and 10. First Information Report was submitted to the Court on 10.10.2009 at 11.00 a.m. If really the investigating officer has

NC: 2025:KHC:45527

HC-KAR

conducted mahazar and recorded the statement of these witnesses on 09.08.2009, he would have submitted the same along with First Information Report to the Court on the same day, but only at the time of filing the charge sheet, he has produced these materials to the Court. Therefore, a careful examination of the entire material evidence on record, there is no cogent, corroborative, clinching, believable and trustworthy evidence placed before this Court. The evidence of prosecution witnesses will create reasonable doubt as to the commission of alleged offence by accused Nos. 3 and 7. Both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Accordingly, the revision petitioners have made out that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court are illegal, capricious, perverse and against the sound principles of law. Hence, I answer point No.1 in affirmative."

10. It is seen, on analysis of prosecution material, said

finding is arrived. Inotherwords, findings about failure of

prosecution to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt is

common to all accused. Said findings would enure to benefit of

accused no.1 and 2 also.

11. In view of observations made by this Court in

Crl.RP.nos.811/2017 and 856/2017, revision petition is

allowed; judgments dated 13.07.2017 passed by Spl. II Addl.

District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Crl.A.no.35/2015,

and dated 15.07.2015 passed by II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC.,

NC: 2025:KHC:45527

HC-KAR