[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Bharimaradappa S/O Siddappa ... on 23 February, 2026
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2854-DB
CRL.A No. 100220 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100220 OF 2023 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,
KANAKAGIRI POLICE STATION,
GANGAVATHI TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT,
THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL SPP)
SAROJA
HANGARAKI AND:
Digitally signed by
SAROJA HANGARAKI
1. BHARIMARADAPPA,
Location: HIGHCOURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
S/O. SIDDAPPA NADAVALAMANE,
DHARWAD
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREKHEDA,
TALUK: GANGAVATHI, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
2. SHANKRAPPA
S/O. DURGAPPA,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREKHEDA,
TALUK: GANGAVATHI, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2854-DB
CRL.A No. 100220 of 2023
HC-KAR
3. KANAKARAYA @ KANAKAPPA
S/O. DURAGAPPA,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREKHEDA,
TALUK: GANGAVATHI, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
4. BHARIMARADAPPA
S/O. VEERESHAPPA,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREKHEDA,
TALUK: GANGAVATHI, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
5. BASAVARAJ
S/O. SIDDAPPA,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREKHEDA,
TALUK: GANGAVATHI, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.M. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R5)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)
AND (3) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM
APPELLATE COURT NAMELY 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSION JUDGE KOPPAL SITTING AT GANGAVATHI IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.44/2016 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.10.2021 PASSED BY THE
1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE KOPPAL
SITTING AT GANGAVATHI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.44/2016
AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED
NO.1 TO 5 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 504, 506(2) READ WITH SECTION 149
OF IPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2854-DB
CRL.A No. 100220 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
State is in appeal, feeling aggrieved by the judgment
passed in Criminal Appeal No.44/2016 by the Court of the I
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Koppal sitting at
Gangavathi, insofar as setting aside the judgment and order
of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Additional
Civil Judges and JMFC., at Gangavathi in C.C.No.56/2015,
acquitting accused Nos.1 to 5 of the offences punishable
under Sections 323, 326, 504, 506(2) r/w Section 34 of
IPC.
2. Heard learned Addl. SPP for the State and the
learned counsel appearing for respondents-accused Nos.1 to
5. Perused the evidence and material on record.
3. The first informant-Hanumesha (PW.1) and the
injured/Bharimaradappa (PW.8) are brothers. Their
properties are adjacent to each others at Hirekheda. There
was enmity between the accused and the complainant viz.,
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2854-DB
HC-KAR
cousins with regard to boundaries of their properties. On
06.10.2014 at 04.30 p.m., when PW.1 and PW.8 were
proceeding to their house from their property on the cart
road and when they were by the side of the property of
Umesh Kurubar at Hirekheda, all the accused, formed an
unlawful assembly and wrongfully restrained PW.8. Accused
Nos.2 and 3 held P.W.8 and abused him in filthy language,
accused No.1 assaulted with the butt end of the axe on his
left shoulder and caused grievous bleeding injury, Accused
No.4 assaulted him with a club on his left ear and back,
Accused No.5 kicked him on his stomach. Due to the said
assault, PW.8 sustained fractures to his forearm etc;
contusion on his back etc. CW.6 and CW.9 who were
present, pacified the quarrel. Thereafter, accused
threatened PW.1 and PW.8 with dire consequences and
went away.
4. Charges were framed against accused Nos.1 to 5
for the offences to punishable under Sections 143, 147,
148, 149, 148, 323, 326, 504, 506(2) r/w 149 IPC.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2854-DB
HC-KAR
5. On behalf of the prosecution, 12 witnesses were
examined and 9 documents were got marked apart from
MO.s 1 to 5.
6. The trial Court vide judgment and order dated
11.11.2016 and 14.11.2016 was pleased to acquit accused
Nos.1 to 5 of the offence punishable under Sections 143,
147, 148 and 149 of IPC and convicted them for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 504, 506(2)
r/w 34 of IPC.
7. In Crl.A. No.44/2016 preferred by accused Nos.1
to 5, the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated
12.10.2021 set aside the conviction and sentence passed by
the trial Court and acquitted them of the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 326, 504, 506(2) r/w 34
IPC, which is under challenge in this appeal.
8. It is the case of prosecution that there was
enmity between the complainant and the accused with
regard to the boundaries of their properties. On 06.10.2014
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2854-DB
HC-KAR
at about 04.30 p.m., when the complainant (PW.1) along
with his brother (PW.8) were proceeding to their house, all
the accused who had formed an unlawful assembly armed
with axe and club and out of them accused Nos.2 and 3
held PW.8-the injured and abused him in filthy language,
accused No.1 assaulted with butt end of axe on his shoulder
and accused No.4 assaulted with a club on his ear and back
and accused No.5 kicked on his stomach. According to
prosecution, on account of the assault, PW.8 sustained
fractures as mentioned in the wound certificate/Ex.P9
issued by the Medical Officer of Community Health Center,
Gangavathi.
9. In Ex.P.1 lodged by PW.1, he has stated that at
the time of incident, one Mallikarjuna Nayak, Basavaraj and
Channabasappa were present and they pacified the quarrel.
Thereafter, he shifted the injured to Government Hospital
Kanakagiri, Gangavathi. Hence, initially the injured was
shifted to the Government Hospital at Kanakagiri,
Gangavathi wherein he was examined by the doctor on
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2854-DB
HC-KAR
06.10.2014 at about 05.15 p.m., as per the wound
certificate-Ex.P9.
10. Among the three persons named in the FIR, who
are said to have pacified the quarrel two are examined as
PWs.5, and 10. They are the independent witnesses to the
incident. However, they have not supported the case of
prosecution.
11. Learned Addl. SPP contended that PW.8 is the
injured and his evidence is corroborated by the evidence of
PW.1 and PW.9 and also the wound certificates at Exs.P.8
and Ex.P.9. He contended that PW.8 being the injured
witness, his evidence has to be accepted, whereas, the
Appellate Court came to an erroneous conclusion by
discarding his evidence. He has therefore contended that
the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed
by the trial Court may be confirmed by setting aside the
judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2854-DB
HC-KAR
12. Admittedly, there was enmity between the
complainant and accused with regard to the boundaries of
their properties. In this background, the evidence of PW.1
and PW.8 and PW.9 has to be examined. The defence taken
by the accused is that the injured has sustained those
injuries by fall from a motorcycle, which has been denied by
PW.1 and PW.8.
13. A careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1-the
first informant in this case clearly goes to show that when
the incident took place, he was at a distance of 1 k.m. away
from the spot. The same is elicited in his cross-examination.
PW9 is another eyewitness. He has stated that he was near
the land, when PW.1 and PW.8 were proceeding near the
land of one Umesh Kurubar and at that time, the accused
came and abused PW.8 and assaulted him with club and
butt end of the axe and threatened him. He has stated that
he along with CW.6 and CW.8 i.e., PW.5 and PW.6 were
present.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2854-DB
HC-KAR
14. The name of PW.9 does find place in the
complaint. When PW.1 has specifically named PW.5, PW.6
and PW.10 as the persons who pacified the quarrel, and if
PW.9 was also present at the spot, he would have certainly
mentioned his name. This is relevant because another
eyewitness examined by the prosecution as PW.10 has
categorically stated in his evidence that when he went to
the spot, except the injured i.e., PW.8, no one was present
at the spot. As per prosecution, there was enmity between
the accused and the complainant's party. If so, it is not
forthcoming as to why only PW.8 was assaulted by the
accused, if even PW.1 was present along with him.
15. PW.10 has stated that on the date of incident, he
had gone near his land, at that time, he saw PW.8 coming
from the land by walk and he had suffered injuries to his
left hand and back of his ear and back. He has stated that
except PW.8 there was no one present and he has not seen
as to who assaulted PW.8.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2854-DB
HC-KAR
16. In view of the above evidence on record, the
case of the prosecution that even PW.1 and PW.9 were also
present at the spot and they have also witnessed the
incident is doubtful. PWs.5 and PW.6 have turned hostile to
the case of prosecution. PW10 has stated that he has not
seen as to who assaulted PW8.
17. According to prosecution, PW.8 was initially
shifted to Government Hospital at Kanakagiri, Gangavathi
wherein, he was examined by the doctor on the same day.
Thereafter, for further treatment he was shifted to
Mallanagouda Hospital, Gangavathi. Ex.P.9 is the wound
certificate issued by Community Health Center, Kanakagiri,
Gangavathi, as per which PW.8 has sustained fractures. The
prosecution has not examined the doctor who treated PW.8
and issued the said certificate. Further, the X-ray films to
confirm that PW.8 sustained fractures is also not produced
and marked. In the absence of the same, it cannot be held
that the prosecution has established that PW.8 has
sustained grievous injuries. Ex.P.8 is the medical certificate
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2854-DB
HC-KAR
issued by PW.12. In his evidence, PW.12 has stated that
PW.8 was admitted as an inpatient in his hospital from
07.10.2014 to 16.10.2014 and there was fracture of left
ulna with multiple rib fracture left side with multiple
contusions over back and right scapular region with left
decramon # with fracture upper and left fibula. PW.12 has
further stated that he has examined the X-ray concerning
the injured. He has mentioned the same in Ex.P.8.
However, the X-ray film is not produced and marked.
PW.12 has only issued the certificate pertaining to PW.8 and
no medical documents except Ex.P.8 are produced to show
that PW.8 was an inpatient in his hospital from 07.10.2014
to 16.10.2014 or to show the nature of treatment given to
PW.8.
18. It is the case of prosecution that M.O.1 and
M.O.2 were seized from the spot i.e., the axe and the club
under Ex.P.2. PW.2 and PW.7 are the panch witnesses to
the said mahazar. PW.7 has not supported, however, PW.2
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2854-DB
HC-KAR
has supported seizure of M.O.1 and M.O.2. Insofar as the
seizure of blood stained clothes of PW.8, which are marked
as M.Os.3 to 5 under Ex.P.3, both the panch witnesses
namely PW.3 and PW.4 have turned hostile and not
supported the prosecution case. Further, the said seized
articles were not sent for chemical examination.
19. PW.8 in his evidence though stated about the
assault on him by the accused and presence of CW.1, CW.5,
CW.6 and CW.7 and they pacifying the quarrel, we have
already observed that the presence of other eyewitnesses
including PW.1 at the scene of occurrence is doubtful. In
view of the admitted rivalry between the parties, convicting
the accused on the sole evidence of PW.8, without
corroboration from independent witnesses and convincing
medical evidence, may not be proper. This is an appeal
preferred against the judgment of acquittal. Once a Court
acquits the accused, the initial presumption of innocence in
his favour is further reinforced. The learned Sessions Judge
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2854-DB
HC-KAR
has held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove
with cogent, oral/documentary evidence that accused Nos.1
to 5 have committed the offences charged against them,
beyond reasonable doubt. The reasons assigned are not
perverse or illegal.
20. For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal fails and accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
HMB-17
KMV- 18 to end
CT-MCK
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 19
