[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Seethappa on 1 April, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:17786-DB
CRL.A No. 942 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.942 OF 2018 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ROYALPAD POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, H.C.G.P.)
AND:
1. SEETHAPPA
S/O. LATE THIPPANNA @ THIMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
Digitally
signed by 2. SRINIVASA
ANJALI M S/O. SEETHAPPA
Location: AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
High Court
of Karnataka 3. SHANKARA
S/O. SEETHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
4. GANGADHARA
S/O. SEETHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
5. ADEMMA
W/O. SEETHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:17786-DB
CRL.A No. 942 of 2018
HC-KAR
6. PADMAVATHI @ PADMAMMA
W/O. SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
7. SMT. RUKMINI
D/O. VENKATARAVANAPPA
MAJOR IN AGE.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
P. CHANNAYYAGARIPALLI VILLAGE
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.R. NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1 TO R-6;
SRI V.S. VINAYAKA, AMICUS CURIAE, FOR R-7)
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND
(3) OF THE CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 18-11-2017 PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR, IN SPL.S.C.
NO.9 OF 2013 THEREBY, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED
OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148,
504, 326 AND 307 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION
3(1)(x)(xi) AND 3(2)(v) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:17786-DB
CRL.A No. 942 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/State,
Sri M.R. Nanjunda Gowda, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.1 to 6/accused Nos.1 to 6, and
Sri V.S. Vinayaka, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for
respondent No.7/de facto complainant.
2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of
acquittal dated 18.11.2017 passed by the II Additional
Sessions Judge, Kolar, in Special Sessions Case No.9 of
2013 and prayed this Court to convict the accused.
3. The trial Judge while appreciating the material
available on record came to the conclusion that though the
injured took treatment in the Hospital, but the Doctor, who
has been examined as PW15, did not treat the injured.
The witnesses, who have been examined, are interested
witnesses, i.e. they are the relatives of the complainant.
NC: 2026:KHC:17786-DB
HC-KAR
Further, in paragraph No.27 of the judgment, the trial
Judge has particularly mentioned about the property issue
between the complainant and the accused, i.e. one
Adinarayana Setty had agreed to sell the property to PW1
and he had executed Sale Agreement and handed over
possession to her. However, Adinarayana Setty had
executed the Sale Deed in favour of the accused by taking
money from them. Even in her evidence, PW1 has
specifically stated that all the accused armed with deadly
weapons, attacked her and caused grievous injuries to
her, and due to assault made by Seethappa, her right
hand was cut. However, she has not specifically stated in
her evidence as to who caused that particular injury to
her. Even on perusal of the entire evidence of PW1, she
has not specifically stated as to who assaulted to her right
hand and with what weapon, which lead to amputation of
right hand. It is also undisputed that there is a case and
counter-case pertaining to the incident because it is
alleged that on 15.05.2013 between 5.00 and 6.00 p.m.,
NC: 2026:KHC:17786-DB
HC-KAR
they assaulted Ademma and Padmavathi and also lit fire to
the Tractor and that case is pending before the I
Additional District Court. Further, the Doctor, who treated
the injured, is not examined because one Dr. Madhu
examined her on 15.05.2013 and found four injuries and
he had written injury No.4 as amputation of hand. Further,
the Doctor, who examined by the prosecution, has stated
that particular hand portion was brought to the Hospital,
but it was not united. Even he had stated that, the
particular amputated hand was not reunited and they have
not conducted surgery because it was not possible to do it
as per the examination of Orthopedic Surgeon. Further,
the husband of PW1 is not examined. According to PW1,
her husband brought the cut portion of hand to the
Hospital and other witnesses have turned hostile. PW7-
Gangulamma, alleged eyewitness to the incident, has not
at all supported the case of the prosecution. The trial
Judge, having considered both oral and documentary
evidence, came to the conclusion that the complainant has
NC: 2026:KHC:17786-DB
HC-KAR
not stated properly as to which accused assaulted, in
which weapon and her right hand was amputed, but she
generally stated that the accused have assaulted which
resulted in several injuries. This particular evidence is not
sufficient to hold that the prosecution has proved its case.
When the material witnesses have not supported the case
of the prosecution, the Doctor, who examined initially, is
also not examined and the Doctor, who is examined by the
prosecution, has not stated as to why that particular hand
was not united. However, he has stated that there is a
delay in bringing that particular amputated portion of the
hand and he has not explained as to why the surgery was
not conducted. Hence, the trial Judge, giving benefit of
doubt to the accused, acquitted them.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the appellant/State would vehemently
contend that the trial Court has discarded the evidence of
PW1-injured, PW7-sister-in-law of PW1, and PW8-
daughter of PW1. Though PW1, in her evidence, clearly
NC: 2026:KHC:17786-DB
HC-KAR
deposed as to which accused inflicted injury to her, but the
trial Court failed to convict the accused and committed
error in acquitting the accused. Hence, she prays to allow
the appeal.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.1 to 6/accused Nos.1 to 6 supports the
judgment of the trial Court. He would contend that
subsequent to passing of acquittal order by the trial Court,
PW1 passed away. The evidence of PWs.7 and 8 will also
not come to the aid of the prosecution to convict the
accused. In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove
the case beyond reasonable doubt. Since the prosecution
is not able to prove its case, the trial Court rightly
acquitted the accused. Hence, he prays to dismiss the
appeal.
6. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for respondent
No.7/de facto complainant supports the case of the
prosecution and would vehemently contend that the trial
NC: 2026:KHC:17786-DB
HC-KAR
Court failed to consider the material available on record.
He contends that though the Doctor, who initially treated
the injured, is not examined, but the evidence of PW15-
Doctor, who is examined by the prosecution, cannot be
disbelieved. Hence, it requires interference by this Court.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
both parties, the point that would arise for consideration of
this Court is:
Whether the trial Court committed error in
acquitting the accused of the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504,
326 and 307 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Sections
3(1)(x)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, and requires interference
of this Court?
8. Having considered the grounds which have been
urged by the learned counsel for both parties, the case
mainly rests upon the evidence of PW1. Though the
NC: 2026:KHC:17786-DB
HC-KAR
Doctor, who has been examined as PW15, is not initially
treated the injured, but there is no explanation from him
with regard to non-uniting the cut portion of the hand. It is
also important to note that PW1-injured is no more and
the appeal filed by her has been dismissed as abated. In
this appeal, PW1 is represented by PW8, daughter of the
injured, and she has been examined before the trial Court
and she is only a hearsay witness. The other witness is
PW7, sister-in-law of PW1. She has admitted in the cross-
examination, but not in the chief evidence and she was
treated as partly hostile. The evidence of PW1 and PW8
are not consistent and hence, the trial Court has given the
benefit of doubt in favour of the accused.
9. While on re-appreciation of the evidence available
on record, the scope of the Appellate Court is very limited.
Only if the Court comes to the conclusion that the accused
committed the offence, then only the Court can reverse
the findings of the trial Court. When there is a benefit of
doubt, it should go in favour of the accused and the same
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17786-DB
HC-KAR
is taken note by the trial Court and hence, it is not a case
for reversing the judgment of the trial Court to interfere
with the findings of the trial Court. In view of the
discussions made above, we pass the following
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
The Registry is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees ten thousand only) as honorarium to
Sri V.S. Vinayaka, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for
respondent No.7-de facto complainant, for valuable
assistance rendered before this Court.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KVK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
