[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The State By Asst vs Padmanabha Shetty on 20 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10607
CRL.A No. 237 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
THE STATE BY ASST.
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
PUTTUR SUB-DIVISION,
PUTTUR,
REP. BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,
D.K.MANGALORE-575 001
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.M.DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
AND:
1. PADMANABHA SHETTY
S/O NARAYANA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT HOSAMANE,
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N PERUVAJE VILLAGE,
Location: High Court
of Karnataka SULLIA TALUK-574 239
2. JAGANNATHA RAI
VISHWANATHA RAI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT HOSAMANE,
PERUVAJE MANE,
BELLARE VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK-574 239
3. SATHYANARAYANA K.,
S/O KOTE GANESHA SUBBAPPAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10607
CRL.A No. 237 of 2015
HC-KAR
R/AT VIJAYANAGARA MANE,
BELLARE VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK-574 239
4. SMT.ANUSUYA
W/O RAMA U.,
AGED 51 YEARS
MUNDAJE MANE
PARUVAJE VILLAGE
SULY TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT- 574 212
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYAPRAKASH RAI, ADVOCATE FOR
R1 TO R3- ABSENT)
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C., PRAYING
TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 25.11.2014 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS (SPL.JUDGE), D.K.,
MANGALORE IN S.C.NO.55/2012, THEREBY ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 448, 323,
506, 109 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(x) OF SC/ST (PA)
ACT 1989.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The State had preferred this appeal against the judgment
of acquittal passed by II Addl. District and Sessions (Special)
Judge, D.K., Mangalore in Special Case No.55/2012 dated
25.11.2014.
NC: 2026:KHC:10607
HC-KAR
2. Parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial
court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the
Assistant Superintendent of Police, Puttur Sub-Division, Puttur
submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offence
under Sections 448, 323, 506, 109 r/w Section 34 of IPC and
Section 3 (1)(x) of S.C. and S.T.(P.A.) Act 1989. It is alleged
by the prosecution that the complainant-Anasuya who is
examined as P.W.1 files a complaint to Sub Inspector of Police
of Sullia Police station at about 1.30 p.m. on 28.07.2012
alleging that on 27.7.2012 in the early morning, the owner of
her neighbouring property had brought some goondas to her
place and had abused her husband in filthy words taking the
name of their caste and had also threatened with dire
consequence and had also removed some of the pillars of the
fence. It is stated that in order to lodge a complaint, when her
husband had been to the office of Assistant Police
Superintendent at Puttur at about 10.00 a.m., one
Padmanabha, Jagannatha and three others of Bellare came with
a JCB to her place and forcibly entered into her property and
NC: 2026:KHC:10607
HC-KAR
started work. It is stated that the complainant went to the spot
and requested that there is a case pending in the court and
therefore illegal activities should be stopped. It is stated that
those people threatened that the complainant would be killed
by putting her under the JCB and immediately she called her
husband over phone who was in the office of the A.S.P. at
Puttur and informed the police officers concerned. It is stated
that the police officers informed Bellare police outpost and
directed the police to stop the illegal activities of the accused. It
is stated that the police of Bellare outpost police had come to
the spot and had seen the illegal activities done by the accused.
It is stated that by the time police had come, the accused had
completed the illegal activities and had kept the JCB outside the
premises and thereafter at about 1.00 p.m., the said
Padmanabha, Jagannatha and three others came into her
house illegally and abused that " ೈರ ಾ ೆ ೇ ದ ಮ ೆ ಎಷು
ಅಹಂ ಾರ" and also informed that one Sathyanarayana Bhat had
threatened to break their leg. The compliant also states that
the accused No.1 abused the complainant with taking name of
her caste and the accused Padmanabha pulled her and she
NC: 2026:KHC:10607
HC-KAR
alone was in her house and therefore she screamed and
hearing her screaming, her husband's brother and his wife
came to the spot and on seeing them, the accused went away
saying that they would not be spared with life either today or
tomorrow. Therefore it was alleged that the said
Sathyanarayana Bhat, Padmanabha, Jagannatha and three
others have committed the offence and action be taken against
them.
4. After filing the charge sheet cognizance was taken
by the trial court and case was registered in Spl.C.No.55/2012.
On hearing the charges the trial court framed the charges for
the alleged commission of offences and the same were read
over and explained to the accused. Having understood the
same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. To
prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined all
the ten witnesses as PW1 to 10. Ten documents were marked
as Ex.Ps.1 to 10. On closure of prosecution side evidence,
statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. Accused
have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
However, they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on
NC: 2026:KHC:10607
HC-KAR
their behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the
trial court had acquitted the accused for the alleged
commission of offences. Being aggrieved by the judgment of
acquittal, State has preferred the appeal.
5. Learned HCGP Sri. M. Diwakar Maddur, would
submit that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to law, facts
of the case and evidence on record. The reasons assigned by
the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal for the charged offences are
erroneous and improper. Hence, it has reached at a wrong
conclusion resulting in substantial miscarriage of justice. The
trial court has not properly appreciated and analysed the
evidence of PW1 to 5. On these grounds, it is sought for
allowing this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent remained
absent. Arguments on behalf of the respondents is taken as nil.
7. Having heard the arguments of the learned HCGP
and on perusal of materials, the following points would arise for
my consideration:
NC: 2026:KHC:10607
HC-KAR
i. Whether the Trial Court is justified in acquitting
the accused for the alleged offence under Section
448, 323, 506, 109 r/w Section 34 of IPC and
Section 3 (1)(x) of S.C. and S.T.(P.A.) Act 1989?
ii. What order?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: Affirmative,
Point No.2: As per final order.
Regarding Point No.1:
9. I have carefully examined the materials placed
before this Court.
10. Before adverting to the actual facts of the case and
appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to refer the dictum of
Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope and power of Appellate
Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In the case of
CONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE
OF UTTARAKHAND reported in (2025)5 SCC 433; BABU
SAHEBGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in (2024)8 SCC 149; CHANDRAPPA v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2007)4 SCC 415; and H.D.
NC: 2026:KHC:10607
HC-KAR
SUNDARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2023)9 SCC
581. In the case of H D SUNDARA (supra), the Apex Court has
summarized the principles governing exercise of appellate
jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against judgment of
acquittal under section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure as
under:
"8. ...8.1. The acquittal of the accused further
strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal
against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and
documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal
against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is
required to consider whether the view taken by the trial
court is a possible view which could have been taken on
the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate
court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground
that another view was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order
of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only
conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the
evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was
NC: 2026:KHC:10607
HC-KAR
proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other
conclusion was possible."
11. In the case of BABU SAHEBGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR
AND OTHERS (supra) it is observed that it is beyond the pale of
doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for
reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court
in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four
corners of the following principles. The same are:
1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent
perversity;
2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission
to consider material evidence on record; and
3. That no two reasonable views are possible and
only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is
possible from the evidence available on record."
12. In the case on hand, the trial court has discussed
the evidence of PW1 to 4 in detail and in para Nos.14 and 15,
the trial court has observed as under:
"14. The evidence of P.W.1 to 4 shows that they
are the members of same family, though residing
separately and there is dispute between them and the
accused in respect of the property. The accused No.3
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10607
HC-KAR
had sold the disputed property to the accused No.1 and
the accused No. 1 cleaned his property with JCB and
the said space was claimed by P.W.1 to 4. It is an
admitted fact that there is civil case pending between
them. The spot sketch and the panchanama were
prepared in the presence of P.W.6 Lokesh. P.W.6 has
stated that the spot sketch was also prepared in his
presence. The perusal of the spot sketch which is
produced as Ex.P.3 shows that there is a trench
separating the survey number belonging to the P.W. 1
and 4 and that of the accused No.3. The spot sketch
also shows that the spot of the incident is beyond the
said trench, extending into the property shown to be
belonging to accused No.3. Thus it is clear that though
there is a trench, the property belonging to the accused
No. 1 and 3 is claimed by the P.W.1. The spot sketch
may be better understood with reference to the survey
map secured by the Investigating officer from the
Tahasildar. The said map is produced at Ex.P.7. It may
be noted that basic dispute between the P.W.1 and the
accused is in respect of the boundary and the alleged
encroachment. Therefore the fact that in order to force
the accused No.1 and 3 to part with encroached
property of P.W.1, filing of this complaint and the case
cannot be overruled. Precisely, this is the argument of
the learned counsel for the accused. Under these
circumstances, it appears that there is every possibility
that an incident has been exaggerated and embellished
by the P.W.1 and her family members and there is no
cogent evidence to show that the P.W.2 and P.W.4
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10607
HC-KAR
were not on duty on that day. Both of them are working
in government undertakings and the cogent evidence
regarding their absence from duty would have
established their presence at the spot. Thus the cogent
evidence which could have been collected by the
Investigating officer is not available on record. The
evidence of P.W.5 is only half hearted and it cannot be
excluded from the doubtful circumstances as she may
be a beneficiary of P.W.1, who was the member of
Taluk Panchayath and an active Congress worker.
Under these circumstances, it would not be safe to
place reliance on the testimony of P.W.1 to 4 and half
hearted testimony of P.W.5. Though it is argued by the
learned Public Prosecutor that only such portion of the
evidence of P.W.1 to 4 and 5 would be believed by the
court, the circumstances shown by the accused do not
inspire my confidence in the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 and
5.
15. In the statement given by the accused No.1 to
3 in response to their questions posed u/s.313 Cr.P.C.,
they have stated that the P.W.1 to 4 in one or other
way are encroaching into their land and there have
been several police complaints also. They have alleged
that accused No.3 is a Bond Writer and all along the
day on 27.07.2012, he was in the office of Sub-
Registrar. Therefore there is considerable force in the
arguments of the learned counsel for the accused that
it is concocted case to force the accused to part with
encroached property of the accused. Under these
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10607
HC-KAR
circumstances, this court comes to the conclusion that
it is not safe for this court to rely on the evidence of
P.W.1 to 4 and 5 and as such the accused are to be
acquitted on benefit of doubt. Hence the points No.1
and 2 raised above are answered in the negative."
13. On re-appreciation, re-examination and
reconsideration of the entire evidence on record and keeping in
mind the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court stated supra, I do
not find any legal and factual error in the impugned judgment
of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, I answer
point No.1 in affirmative.
Regarding Point No.2 :
14. For the aforesaid reasons and discussion, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
BN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50
