[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt.Jubeda W/O Mardansab Vadavi vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 2026
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1670
CRL.A No. 100224 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100224 OF 2019 (A)
BETWEEN:
SMT.JUBEDA W/O. MARDANASAB VADAVI,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. GULAGANDI, TQ. HAVERI,
NOW R/AT HULAGOOR,
TQ. SIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GANTIKERI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
Digitally signed
by
2. SHRI. MARDANSAB S/O. DAVALSAB VADAVI,
VIJAYALAKSHMI VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI M KANKUPPI
Date: 2026.02.10
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
10:40:50 +0530
R/O. GULGODI, TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI.
3. SMT.SHAHEENA W/O. SALIM
@ SALIM AHMMAD YADWAD,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KANAVALLI VILLAGE,
NEAR CHURCH, DIST. HAVERI.
4. AJEEJSAB @ AJEEJ
S/O. MODINASAB DODDAMANI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KANAVALLI VILLAGE, NEAR CHURCH,
DIST. HAVERI.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1670
CRL.A No. 100224 of 2019
HC-KAR
5. SMT.FAREEDABANU @ MUNNY
W/O. AJEEJSAB DODDAMANI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KANAVALLI VILLAGE,
NEAR CHURCH, DIST. HAVERI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 372 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING
TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
29/04/2019, PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
HUBBALLI IN C.C.NO. 2467/2018 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS,
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
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is a complainant's appeal preferred against the
judgment of acquittal passed by the learned I Additional Civil
Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, whereby vide judgment dated
29.04.2019, accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted of the offence
punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504, 506 read with Section
34 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
High Court Government Pleader. Perused the evidence and
material on record.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1670
HC-KAR
3. The complainant (P.W.1) is the victim in this case.
She is the wife of accused No.1. Due to some matrimonial
discord between them, since two years they were residing
separately. On 27.05.2018 at about 02.00 p.m., the complainant
had been to Shahhabazar, Hubballi along with her sister-
Gudumabi(P.W.3) to purchase clothes. It is alleged that, when
she was in the shop, accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 4
came to the shop and assaulted her with hands, accused No.2
pulled her by hair and slapped her and also assaulted the
complainant's sister-P.W.3.
4. Before the trial Court, seven witnesses were
examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. The learned Magistrate
on appreciation of the evidence and material on record, acquitted
the accused vide impugned judgment.
5. The learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion
that except CWs.1, 4 and 6, other witnesses have totally turned
hostile and not supported the case of prosecution and
admittedly, there is a matrimonial dispute between accused
No.1 and the complainant and in the evidence of complainant
and other witnesses, there are material contradictions. Hence,
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1670
HC-KAR
held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend
that the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the evidence of
P.Ws.2 and 3 and further corroborated by the medical evidence,
wherein, the Doctor-PW7 has issued Ex.P7, wound certificate
pertaining to the complainant. Hence, he contended that the
prosecution has established the charges levelled against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the judgment of
acquittal passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and
accused are liable to be convicted.
7. The incident is alleged to have taken place on
27.05.2018 at about 02.00 p.m. in the shop of P.W.4. According
to prosecution, when the complainant along with her sister had
been to the shop to purchase clothes, all the accused came and
assaulted her. The shopkeeper- P.W.4 has not supported the
case of prosecution. The said witness has stated that the accused
have not committed any offence as alleged. Similarly, P.W.5,
another independent eye witness has denied the case of
prosecution.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1670
HC-KAR
8. Though the incident took place on 27.05.2018, the
complaint was lodged on 31.05.2018. P.W.1 in her complaint has
stated that after the incident, she went to KIMS Hospital for
treatment and thereafter, went to her village and informed the
matter to her elders and her sister took treatment at home. In
the admitted rivalry between the parties, the delay assumes an
important role. But the reasons assigned for the delay of 4 days
in lodging the complaint are not satisfactory.
9. P.W.1 has clearly admitted that since 3 years she
was residing separately from her husband. P.W.3 i.e., the sister
of P.W.1 who accompanied her to shop for purchasing clothes, in
the cross-examination has stated that after the incident, they
went to their house and after discussing the matter with the
elders, lodged the complaint on 31.05.2018. Even though,
P.W.2, panch witness to Ex.P2-spot mahazar has supported the
prosecution case, from the evidence of P.W.1, it is seen that in
his auto-rickshaw, she went to Hubballi and the said witness was
residing near her house and he was known to her.
10. The trial Court has noticed several contradictions in
the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.1 has stated that accused No.1
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1670
HC-KAR
fisted on her chest and abdomen. However, the same is not
spoken by P.Ws.2 and 3. Omnibus allegations are made by them.
PW3 has stated that accused No.2 pulled the hair of the
complainant-P.W.1 and slapped her and made her to fall.
However, P.W.1 has not stated that she was slapped by accused
No.2.
11. From the material on record, it is seen that there was
a matrimonial dispute between accused No.1 and P.W.1. The
complainant was residing separately from her husband i.e.,
accused No.1. In the cross examination, P.W.3 has stated that
accused No.2 had married accused No.1. The independent
witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. Even
though the evidence of P.W.7, the Doctor who issued Ex.P7-
wound Certificate goes to show that P.W.1 sustained some
superficial injuries, it cannot be said that the prosecution has
established the charges levelled against accused Nos.1 to 4
beyond all reasonable doubt. Even though, P.W.7 has stated that
on 27.05.2018 at about 05.45 p.m., the injured came to the
Hospital and he noticed certain abrasions, pain etc. There is no
mention of MLC intimation sent to the concerned police station.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1670
HC-KAR
12. This being an appeal preferred against the judgment
of acquittal, this Court having re-appreciated the evidence and
material on record finds no compelling grounds to reverse the
judgment. The reasons assigned by the trial Court cannot be
held to be either perverse or illegal. Appeal therefore fails and
accordingly, dismissed.
SD/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
RKM
CT:PA
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8
