[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Puttaiah vs Javaraiah on 25 February, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11854-DB
CRL.A No. 967 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1890 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.967 OF 2018
C/W.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1890 OF 2017
IN CRL.A NO.967/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. PUTTAIAH
S/O BYRAIAH
R/O MALLAPURA VILLAGE
AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M (BY SRI. ANIRUDH CHAMUNDA, ADVOCATE -
Location: HIGH [AUTHORIZED BY HCLSC])
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. JAVARAIAH
S/O BYRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
2. BOOMESH S/O JAVARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
THE APPELLANT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
R/O MALLAPURA VILLAGE
AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11854-DB
CRL.A No. 967 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1890 of 2017
HC-KAR
3. PRASANNA
S/O BASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O ANKIHALLI
BIKKODU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
4. STATE BY AREHALLI P.S.
BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. L. SRINIVASA BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R4)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT DATED
16.10.2017, PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN, IN S.C.NO.225/2013 BY
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 307 R/W SECTION 34
OF IPC.
IN CRL.A NO.1890/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. JAVARAIAH
S/O BYRAIAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
MALLAPURA VILLAGE
AREHALLI HOBLI
BELUR TALUK.
2. BOOMESH
S/O JAVARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:11854-DB
CRL.A No. 967 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1890 of 2017
HC-KAR
MALLAPURA VILLAGE
AREHALLI HOBLI
BELUR TALUK.
3. PRASANNA S/O BASAVAIAH
AREHALLI, BIKKODU HOBLI
BELUR TALUK.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. L. SRINIVASA BABU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE
BY AREHALLI POLICE
BELURU TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573201
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 16.10.2017 PASSED
BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
HASSAN IN S.C.NO.225/2014 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 326, 504 AND 506 R/W
SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL 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
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:11854-DB
CRL.A No. 967 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1890 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard learned counsel for appellant-complainant, learned
Senior counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3 and learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
2. These two appeals are filed by the complainant-
victim as well as the appellants questioning the acquittal for the
offence punishable under Sections 307 of IPC by the victim and
also the accused persons questioning the order of conviction
and sentence passed for the offence punishable under Sections
326, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is that
as per the complaint, the statement of the injured was
recorded on 20.02.2012 and in the complaint-Ex.P1, it is stated
that on 19.02.2012 at 5.30 p.m., when the injured P.W.1
questioned lifting of tank water for cultivation which was
reserved for the purpose of drinking of cattle, immediately,
when the question was made by P.W.1, accused No.1 assaulted
with club on his left portion of the head and his son Boomesh
and Prasanna came and the said Boomesh assaulted with
NC: 2026:KHC:11854-DB
HC-KAR
chopper on the right ear and accused No.3 assaulted with his
hands on his right ear and also his right eye. At that time,
when the complainant made hue and cry, the witnesses, who
have witnessed the incident came and pacified the galata and
the accused persons left the spot disclosing that they would kill
him some other day. Immediately, the witnesses Suresh, Raju
and Hemanthkumar and his wife shifted him to Belur Hospital,
thereafter, he was referred to Hassan, then he was referred to
NIMHANS Hospital. It is also the case of the prosecution that
based on the complaint, mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P2
and so also as per Exs.P3 to P5, statement of the witnesses
was also recorded and collected the wound certificate and all
material from the hospital i.e., MLC, summary sheet, case
sheet, nurse record, lab report, treatment charge, discharge
summary, OPD card, scan report, report and MLC copy which
are marked as Exs.P13 to P22.
4. The prosecution after completion of the
investigation filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable
Sections 324, 326, 504, 506 and 307 read with Section 34 of
NC: 2026:KHC:11854-DB
HC-KAR
IPC. The accused persons were secured and accused did not
plead guilty and claims trial.
5. Hence, the prosecution mainly relies upon the
evidence of P.Ws.1 to 15 and the documents Exs.P1 to P22 and
M.O.1 and M.O.2 are also marked. During the cross-
examination, confronted the documents Exs.D1 to D6.
6. The Trial Judge, after recording the evidence of
prosecution witnesses, subjected the accused persons for 313
statement and incriminating evidence was denied and
thereafter, the Trial Judge having considered both oral and
documentary evidence available on record comes to the
conclusion that it is not a case for 307 of IPC. However, taking
note of nature of injuries i.e., grievous injury of fracture comes
to the conclusion that it comes within the purview of Section
326 of IPC and also comes to the conclusion that the accused
persons have abused in filthy language and invoked Sections
506 and 504 of IPC for causing intimidation and life threat.
Hence, the learned Trial judge while considering the material on
record having convicted the accused imposed simple
imprisonment of 3 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the
NC: 2026:KHC:11854-DB
HC-KAR
offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of
IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence
punishable under Section 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and
so also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence
punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and
also imposed default sentence. Being aggrieved by the
conviction, these two appeals are filed by the complainant-
victim as well as the accused persons.
7. Learned counsel for the victim-complainant in
Crl.A.No.967/2018 would vehemently contend that the Trial
Court committed an error in making an erroneous observation
in paragraph No.14 that the victim has not whispered regarding
the attempt made by the accused to kill him and the said
observation is erroneous. The counsel would vehemently
contend that having considered the nature of injuries, the the
wound certificate is very clear that injury No.1 is grievous in
nature and Ex.P20-scan report issued by the Hassan CT Scan
Centre clearly states undisplaced fractures of right frontal and
squamous temporal bone. The counsel also brought to notice of
this Court document of Ex.P21 i.e., Nimhans hospital record,
NC: 2026:KHC:11854-DB
HC-KAR
wherein it is categorically stated that there was fracture.
Hence, the Trial Court ought to have taken note of material on
record and committed an error in acquitting the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Hence, prayed
this Court to invoke Section 307 of IPC.
8. The learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent-State also reiterates the grounds
which have been urged by learned counsel appearing for the
victim-complainant and brought to notice of this Court
document of wound certificate Ex.P9 and so also the opinion
given by the Doctor in terms of Ex.P10. In the wound certificate
Ex.P9, it is stated that injury No.1 is grievous in nature and
opinion of the Doctor is very clear that the weapon which was
used i.e., machete would cause the death of a person, if force
is used. Hence, it is a clear case of Section 307 of IPC and Trial
Court committed an error
9. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for appellants-
accused would vehemently contend that it is a case of planting
accused Nos.1 to 3. He would vehemently contend that at the
first instance, though injured was taken to Belur Hospital and
NC: 2026:KHC:11854-DB
HC-KAR
MLC was also done, name of the assailants is not mentioned.
Hence, it is clear that the accused Nos.1 to 3 are implicated
due to previous ill-will. He would further submit that there was
ill-will between the parties with regard to earlier Grama
Panchayath election and when the injured was taken to
different hospitals i.e., Belur Hospital, Hassan or NIMHANS not
stated the name of the assailants. Hence, Trial Court ought to
have taken note of the same while considering the material
available on record. He would vehemently contend that
evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 are not consistent and
there is discrepancy in the evidence of these witnesses and
when there is inconsistent evidence available before the Court,
the Trial Court ought not to have convicted even for the offence
punishable under Section 326 of IPC. He would further submit
that there are no ingredients of offence punishable under
Section 504 of IPC and wrongly invoked the said Section and
none of the witnesses speak about insulting P.W.1 by using
filthy language and committed an error. He would also submit
that even for the offence under Section 506 of IPC, there is no
material available before the Court and committed an error. He
would further submit that the very argument of the learned
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11854-DB
HC-KAR
counsel for the victim-complainant as well as learned High
Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State that it is a
case for invoking Section 307 of IPC cannot be accepted and
also there is an improvement in the evidence of P.W.1 and
though eye witnesses have not spoken anything in the chief-
evidence and only during the cross-examination when the case
was set down for cross-examination and before commencement
of cross-examination of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 made
improvement in the evidence that if they would have not
pacified the accused persons, they would have taken the life
and this improvement is very clear that prosecution mainly
relies upon this evidence. Hence, question of invoking Section
307 of IPC does not arise.
10. Having heard learned counsel for appellant-
complainant, learned Senior counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3 and
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-
State, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court
are:
(i) Whether the victim-complainant and the
respondent-State have made out a case to
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11854-DB
HC-KAR
invoke Section 307 of IPC and it requires
conviction for the offence punishable under
Section 307 of IPC with appropriate sentence?
(ii) Whether the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 have
made out a case for acquittal as contented in the
Crl.A.No.1890/2017?
(iii) What order?
Point Nos.(i) and (ii):
11. Having discussed the genesis of the crime as
attributed by the prosecution and also considering the material
available on record, particularly Ex.P1-complaint, a statement
is made by the injured in the hospital at Hassan when he was
sent back to Hassan from NIMHANS and his statement was not
recorded either in the first hospital at Belur and also even
NIMHANS in the presence of the Doctor. But, his statement was
recorded only when he came back to the Hassan Hospital,
where he took treatment as inpatient from 20.02.2012 to
29.02.2012 that too, at 10.00 p.m. and the statement was
recorded by HC-99 at the first instance in Crime No.36/2012
invoking Sections 504, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC
and not invoked either Section 307 of IPC or Section 326 of
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11854-DB
HC-KAR
IPC. Having considered the material available on record, the
Investigating Officer invoked the offence under Sections 326 as
well as Section 307 of IPC. Having perused Ex.P1, there is no
material before the Court that injured made the statement that
with an intention to take away the life, they inflicted the injury
with the club and machete, the same is taken note of by the
Trial Court in paragraph No.14 while appreciating the evidence.
12. No doubt, learned counsel for the appellants-
accused also brought to notice to this Court that there is an
improvement in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 with
regard to invoking Section 307 of IPC, we have also perused
the evidence available on record and they have not spoken
anything when they have been examined in chief with regard to
invoking Section 307 of IPC is concerned. Having considered
the material on record, when the eye witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2
and P.W.4 have not spoken anything about with an intention to
commit the murder, they inflicted the injury, we do not find any
ground to invoke the offence under Section 307 of IPC and
there must be an intention to invoke Section 307 of IPC and the
nature of injuries are immaterial. The Court also has to take
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11854-DB
HC-KAR
note of mens rea while appreciating the material to invoke the
offence under Section 307 of IPC and whether such mens rea is
there or not, there is no evidence that with an intention to take
away the life only, the accused inflicted injury, no material
before the Court. When no material is available before the
Court and none of the witnesses have spoken about mens rea
of the assailants, question of invoking Section 307 of IPC does
not arise.
13. Now coming to the aspect of evidence available
before the Court, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 have categorically
deposed before the Court with regard to the incident is
concerned. The P.W.1-injured in the complaint as well as in the
evidence categorically deposed that when he found the accused
persons lifting water from the pond for plantation, he
questioned that the same is meant for public use and for cattle,
immediately the accused persons enraged and inflicted injury
with club as well as machete. The specific overt act allegation is
made against accused Nos.1 and 2 that they inflicted injury
with weapons club and machete. But, only allegation made
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11854-DB
HC-KAR
against the accused No.3 is that he inflicted the injury with
hand.
14. It is also important to note that in the wound
certificate, the name of accused Nos.1 and 2 is specifically
mentioned. But, in the MLC copy at Ex.P22, the name of
another person is not mentioned, but stated as another person.
When such being the case and even having considered the
contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4,
general omnibus statement is made by P.W.4 that accused
No.3 assaulted with hands. But, P.W.2 says that he assaulted
with hand and P.W.1 deposed before the Court that accused
No.3 assaulted with hand on the right ear and eight eye.
Hence, there are material contradictions with regard to overt
act of accused No.3. When such material is available before the
Trial Court, the Trial Court committed an error in appreciating
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and very presence of
accused No.3 is doubtful. Hence, the trial Judge committed an
error in convicting the accused No.3. Therefore, it requires
interference of this Court in respect of accused No3.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11854-DB
HC-KAR
15. Now coming to the aspect of accused Nos.1 and 2 is
concerned, it has also emerged during the course of evidence
that P.W.1, on account of injuries sustained by him when he
was taken to Belur hospital, Hassan and NIMHANS, he was not
having consciousness. But, his evidence is very clear that he
got consciousness when he was at NIMHANS Hospital and he
was immediately sent back to Hassan and statement was made
on the very next day i.e., on 20.02.2012, wherein he attributed
the role of the accused persons. But, the material available
before the Court, particularly the wound certificate-Ex.P9
issued by the Doctor and also the evidence of the Doctor-
P.W.13 and P.W.15 is very clear that he had sustained grievous
injuries as per Ex.P9 i.e., injury No.1 cut-lacerated wound over
right scalp 5 x ½ x 1 cm. and the prosecution also relies upon
Ex.P10- opinion given by the Doctor that machete would cause
the death of a person. But, the evidence available before the
Court is that prosecution relies upon the document Ex.P20. No
doubt, there is a CT scan report, but not produced x-ray before
the Court to come to a conclusion that he had suffered fracture
and except, Ex.P20-CT scan report, no other material is
available before the Court. No doubt, the Ex.P20-Court scan
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11854-DB
HC-KAR
report provides the impression undisplaced fractures of right
frontal and squamous temporal bone and in the absence of CT
scan, as held by Division Bench of this Court in
Crl.A.No.530/2002 dated 03.03.2010, in the absence of x-ray
proving the fracture, question of invoking either Section 326 of
IPC or Section 307 of IPC does not arise. However, brought to
notice of this Court offence under Section 324 of IPC.
16. Having considered the material available on record,
in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4, nothing is elicited
from the said witnesses that there was enmity prior to this
incident i.e., on 19.02.2012 and in the absence of any answer
elicited from the mouth of the witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2 and
P.W.4 with regard to earlier animosity, this Court cannot
disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses. Though an attempt
is made by learned Senior Counsel for appellants/accused
before the Court that there was political enmity with regard to
Panchayath election, the same is also not found in the cross-
examination of any of the witnesses, except suggesting that he
was a member of Grama Panchayath and the same is not
admitted and prior enmity even with regard to election issue is
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11854-DB
HC-KAR
also not found before the Court. Having considered the nature
of injuries that is sustained by P.W.1 and also consistent
evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 with regard to the incident is
concerned, even in the cross-examination also, when a
suggestion was made that a scuffle has taken place and at that
time, P.W.1 had sustained the injuries, the same was admitted
by defence. When such being the case, when the incident is
admitted and when the suggestion was made that during the
scuffle, injury is sustained by P.W.1, it is very clear that
incident is not in dispute.
17. Having considered the material on record and the
incident has taken place in the year 2012 almost 14 years ago
and accused Nos.1 and 2 and P.W.1 are relatives, neighbouring
landowners, who belong to the same village and agriculturalist
and there was no previous ill-will and incident has taken place
on a sudden provocation when P.W.1 had questioned regarding
lifting of water from the pond and there was also a case and
counter case and having taken note of all these factors into
consideration, it is not a case for imposing sentence and
instead, taking note of the fact that injured was shifted at the
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11854-DB
HC-KAR
first instance to Belur Hospital, then to Hassan and thereafter
to NIMHANS and considering the fact that he was admitted in
Hassan Hospital for almost 10 days and took treatment as an
inpatient and incurred expenses, this Court deems it
appropriate to compensate the same by imposing fine of
Rs.1,50,000/- each which would meet the ends of justice.
18. No doubt, the Court while imposing sentence has to
take note that sentence must commensurate with the gravity of
the offence and this Court having discussed with regard to the
circumstances under which the incident has taken place, we
deem it appropriate to compensate the same by imposing fine
amount. Hence, we answer point Nos.(i) and (ii) accordingly.
Point No.(iii):
19. In view of the discussion made above, we pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by victim-complainant in
Crl.A.No.967/2018 is dismissed.
(ii) The appeal filed by the appellants-accused in
Crl.A.No.1890/2017 is allowed-in- part.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11854-DB
HC-KAR
(iii) The conviction for the offence punishable under
Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC is set
aside and modified bringing the same for the
offence punishable under Section 324 read with
Section 34 of IPC.
(iv) Instead of imposing sentence, accused Nos.1 and
2 are ordered to pay fine of Rs.1,50,000/- each
within four weeks before the Trial Court which is
payable to P.W.1 on proper identification.
(v) The accused No.3 is acquitted for the charges
levelled against him.
(vi) In view of acquittal of accused No.3, the Trial
Court is directed to refund the fine amount, if any
deposited on proper identification.
(vii) The amount, if any deposited by accused Nos.1
and 2 shall be adjusted towards the fine imposed
and the remaining amount deposited before Trial
Court.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
ST
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
