[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr.Kalaputra vs State By Harapanahalli Police on 27 February, 2026
-1-
CRL.A No.271 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.271 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
MR. KALAPUTRA
S/O.VENKANAGOWDA,
R/AT. HARAPANNAHALLI,
HARAPANNAHALLI POST,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583131.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.S. MURALI, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE BY HARAPANAHALLI POLICE
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. MR. MALTHESH
S/O. SAMBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
3. MR. RAGHAVENDRA,
S/O. SAMBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 ARE
R/O. ANJANEYA EXTENSION,
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583131.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. IJARI NAGARAJA, ADV. FOR R2 & R3.)
-2-
CRL.A No.271 of 2013
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2008 PASSED BY THE
JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI IN C.C.NO.669/2008 AND
CONSEQUENTLY REMAND THE MATTER FOR FRESH TRIAL, FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 504, 355, 323 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 22.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred this appeal against the
judgment of acquittal dated 31.12.2008 passed in
C.C.No.669/2008 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Harapanahalli (for short "the trial Court").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the
Sub-Inspector of Police, Harapanahalli Police Station submitted
the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under
Sections 341, 504, 323, 355 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 05th
August, 2008 at 11.00 am, when CW1-Kalaputra was
constructing the house through labourers in Harappanahalli
accused approached him, and with a common object wrongfully
restrained him to put-up construction and in this regard when
CW1 was proceeding to police station to file a complaint, the
accused abused CW1, CW7 and CW8 in filthy language and
caught hold of the shirt of CW1 and assaulted him with slipper
and also assaulted him with his hands and legs, thereby
voluntarily caused simple hurt. Thus, the accused have
committed the alleged offence.
4. After filing charge sheet, case was registered.
Accused had appeared before the trial Court and enlarged on
bail. The trial Court has framed the charges and same were
read-over and explained to the accused. Having understood the
same accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all 8 witnesses
were examined as PW1 to PW8. Seven documents were marked
as Exhibits P1 to P7. Two material objects were marked as
MOs.1 and 2.
6. 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 their behalf.
7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial
Court acquitted the accused for the alleged offences. Being
aggrieved by this judgment of acquittal, the appellant has
preferred the Criminal Revision Petition before this Court in
Crl.RP.No.642/2009. This Criminal Revision petition is
converted as Criminal Appeal No.271/2013.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant would submit that the trial Court has miserably failed
to appreciate the evidence and documents on record in
accordance with law and facts. The evidence on record, beyond
all reasonable doubt, establishes the fact that on 05.08.2008 at
about 11.30 a.m., when the appellant was in the process of
repairing the structure, respondent Nos.2 and 3 approached
him and prevented him from proceeding further. It is also
borne out from the evidence that the respondent Nos.2 and 3
abused the complainant/appellant, threatened him with dire
consequences and assaulted him with slipper. The assault has
been corroborated by the medical certificate. Hence, there was
no reason for the trial Court to disbelieve the evidence of the
prosecution. The learned Judge has committed a grave mistake
in disbelieving evidence of the independent witnesses PW3 and
PW5. Nothing has been elicited during the cross-examination to
disbelieve their evidence. The trial Court has wrongly
considered the evidence of PW4. The learned trial Judge has
exceeded from its jurisdiction in observing that appellant has
lodged a complaint out of his enmity with respondent Nos.2 and
3. To constitute an offence under Section 341 of IPC, one has
to prove the fact of restraint. The evidence that the appellant
has been assaulted, ipso facto, makes out a case that the
appellant has been restrained when the evidence on record
clearly speaks about the fact of the assault. The presumption
needs to be drawn that the aggrieved party has been restrained
from escaping the assault. Hence, the reasoning of the trial
Court that there is no specific evidence to establish the
ingredients of Section 341 of Indian Penal Code is improper and
same is due to non-application of mind. The trial Court has
committed a grave error in appreciating the evidence by
reading in between the lines. The trial Court ought to have
taken the evidence on record on its face value before arriving
at a particular conclusion. The trial Court having not done so,
has caused great injustice to the appellant. On all these
grounds, it is sought for allowing this appeal.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing
for respondent-State and the learned Counsel appearing for the
private respondents, would submit that the trial Court has
properly appreciated the evidence on record in proper
perspective. Absolutely, there are no materials to interfere
with the impugned judgment of acquittal and sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
10. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of
materials, the following points would arise for my
consideration:
1. Whether the trial Court is justified in
acquitting the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 341, 504, 355, 323
read with 34 of Indian Penal Code?
2. What order?
Regarding Point No.1:
11. Before appreciation of evidence and record, it is
necessary to mention as to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
Court 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. 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 proved beyond a reasonable doubt
and no other conclusion was possible."
12. 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."
13. It is the case of the prosecution that on 05th
August, 2008 when CW1-Kalaputra was near the construction
site, accused having common object, wrongfully restrained
CW1 and in this regard when CW1 was proceeding to police
station to file a complaint, accused abused him in filthy
language and also caught hold of the shirt of CW1, assaulted
him with slipper and with his hands and legs voluntarily causing
simple hurt. Thus, the accused has committed the alleged
offences.
14. The genesis of the case arises from the complaint
filed by the complainant as per Exhibit P1, in which it is stated
as under:
" ಾನು ಾನ ೈ ಎ ಾ ೇಬರು ೇ ದುದ ಂದ
ಇಂ ಂದ ೆಲಸ ಾ ರಂಭ ಾ ರು!ೆ"ೕ ೆ. #ೆ $ೆ% ಸು ಾರು 9 ಂದ
ೆಲಸ ಾ ರಂಭ ಾ ರು!ೆ"ೕ ೆ. ನಂತರ ಸ'ಲ( ಸಮಯದ ನಂತರ
ಅಂದ,ೆ 11:30ರ ಸು ಾ $ೆ ಮಲ!ೇಶ ಬಂದು ೆಲಸ ./0. ೆ1ೕಷ3 $ೆ
ೋ5 6.ೕ ಕ,ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬರು!ೆ"ೕ ೆ ಎಂದು ಅವನ vÀªÀÄä
,ಾಘ ೇಂದ $ೆ ೇ ೋದ ನಂತರ ಅವನು ನಮ; ೆಲಸ$ಾರ $ೆ
ೆಲಸ ./0. ಇಲ/ ದ<,ೆ ಮ$ೆ ೊ=ೆಯು!ೆ"ೕ ೆ ಮ; >ೕ?ೆ ೇ
ಾಡು!ೆ"ೕ ೆ ಎಂದು ೆದ 0ದನು. ೆಲಸ$ಾರರು ತಮ; ಆತ; ರABೆ$ಾ5
ಾವC ೆಲಸ ಾಡುವC ಲ/ ಎಂದು ೇ ದರು ಾನು ೆ1ೕಷ3 $ೆ ೋ5
ಾ ೇಬರನುD ಕ,ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬರು!ೆ"ೕ ೆ ಎಂದು ೇ ೋಗುF"ರು ಾಗ
ಘG ಎಂಬುವನು ಅªÁಚ ಶಬ<ಗ ಂದ #ೈದು, ನನD ಬIೆ1ಯನುD ಹ ದು,
gÁಘG
ಚಪ(.Lಂದ ೊ=ೆದು, ೊ=ೆದು ಎMೆNಾ ೆಲ ೆO ಉರು 0
ೊ=ೆಯುF"ದ<ರು Q ಸಲು ಬಂದವ $ೆ ೕವC Q 0ದ,ೆ ಮ;ನುD
ೊ=ೆಯುವCNಾ5 ೆದ 0zÀÝ ಂದ ೆಲವರು Q ಸಲು ಬಂದುದ ಂದ
ಅವರು RಂNೆ ಸ ದರು. ನನD ಅಂ5ಯೂ ಹ ದು ೋ5 ನನD ಎಡ$ೈ
ಮತು" ಬಲ$ೈನ./ !ೆ,ೆದ $ಾಯಗಳT ಆ5ರುತ" ೆ ಾರಣ ಅವನನುD ತಮ;
VಾBೆ$ೆ ಕ,ೆ0 ಸೂಕ" WXೆ ೊಟು1 ಒಬ[ಂ\ಗ,ಾದ ನಮ;ನುD ರ]ಸ#ೇ ೆಂದು
ತಮ;./ ೇ ೊಳT^!ೆ"ೕ ೆ. ಈ ಘಟ ೆಯು ಹರಪ(ನಹ ^ ಪಟ1ಣದ
ಆಂಜ ೇಯ ಬ=ಾವBೆಯ ನaಮ ಮ ೆಯ ಹF"ರ ನ=ೆ ರುತ"Nೆ. "
15. On the basis of this complaint, Harappanahalli
police have registered the case in Crime No.139/2008 and
submitted the FIR to the Court on 06.08.2008 at 12.10 noon as
per Exhibit P7. The complainant-Kalputra examined as PW1. He
- 10 -
has deposed his evidence as stated in Exhibit P1. Further, he
has deposed as to the treatment taken by him in
Harappanahalli Government Hospital. He has deposed in his
evidence that he has put his signature on Exhibit P2 in the
police station. In this regard, he is treated as hostile witness
and cross-examined by the Assistant Public Prosecutor with the
permission of the Court, and in the cross-examination also he
has clearly stated that he has put his signature on Exhibit P2 in
the police station.
16. PW2-Manjunatha has deposed as to the mahazar
conducted by the police as per Exhibit P2.
17. PW3-Parsappa has deposed in his evidence that at
about four months back one day morning 11.30 a.m. the clash
took place between the accused and CW1 regarding
construction of house near his house. Accused caught hold of
shirt of CW1, and pushed him and assaulted with slipper. CW1
sustained injuries on his head. He identified the slipper as per
MO2.
18. PW4-Beemappa has deposed as to the mahazar
conducted by the police as per Exhibit P2.
- 11 -
19. PW5-Ajjayya said to be the eye-witness, has
deposed in his evidence that on 05th August, 2008 in the
morning 11.30 am, the clash took place in front of the house of
CW1. Accused No.2 assaulted to CW1 with slipper and tore the
shirt of CW1.
20. PW6-Abdul and PW7-Ahmed said to be the eye-
witnesses to this incident, have not supported the case of the
prosecution.
21. PW9-G.K.Nandakumar, Head constable has deposed
as to the investigation conducted by him.
22. During the course of cross-examination of PW1 has
clearly admitted as to the civil dispute between them since
2001 with regard to the site at Harihar which is pending before
the Court at Harihar. He has also admitted that since there is a
civil dispute, many a times police have issued an endorsement
as to the complaint filed by them.
23. During the course of cross-examination of PW2, he
has clearly admitted that the accused has filed a complaint
against him regarding the site.
- 12 -
24. PW3-Parsappa has deposed in his evidence that he
cannot say the date of incident and he has admitted that CW2
is his relative. Further, he has admitted that his house is about
100 meters away from the crime spot.
25. PW5-Ajjayya has deposed in his cross-examination
that when he visited the spot, number of people gathered
there. However, he cannot say the name of other persons who
are gathered there.
26. A careful examination of the entire evidence placed
before this Court, it is clear that the evidence of PW1 has not
been substantiated by any independent witnesses. The other
witnesses who have deposed in favour of the prosecution, are
close relatives of the complainant. The other independent
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution.
Admittedly, there is an enmity between the accused and the
complainant since 2001 regarding site dispute. Under these
circumstances, it is not safe to rely upon the interested
testimony of PW1 and other interested witnesses. Additionally,
Exhibit P6-wound certificate reveals that the injured Kalaputra
was admitted with history of assault on 05.08.2008 and in the
wound certificate, Doctor has found the following injuries:
- 13 -
1. An abrasion wound on left elbow joint - colour
Brown
2. Pain and tenderness on right elbow joint
3. A scratch mark on left thumb.
27. The Doctor has opined that injuries are simple in
nature. In the wound certificate, the medical officer has not
disclosed the name of the accused or the weapon used for the
commission of offence. The doctor who has examined the
injured has not been examined before this Court. If really the
accused had assaulted CW1 with slipper, same would have
been disclosed before the medical officer and in-turn medical
officer would have shown the same in the wound certificate-
Exhibit P6.
28. The Investigating Officer has not explained anything
as to non-mentioning of the weapon used for the commission of
offence, so also name of the accused in the wound certificate.
29. The trial Court has properly appreciated the
evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Even on
re-appreciation of the evidence on record, I do not find any
legal or factual error in the judgment of acquittal passed by the
trial Court. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
- 14 -
Regarding Point No.2:
30. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
