[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Basavaraju.M vs Sri. Basavarajappa on 9 January, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:1282-DB
CRL.A No. 1679 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1679 OF 2025 (A)
BETWEEN:
SRI BASAVARAJU M.
S/O. SHANAKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT KUNDALAGURA
SHIVANAGRA, HIRIYUR TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 598.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI BASAVARAJAPPA
S/O. NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
Digitally signed by RESIDING AT MANJUNATHA NAGARA
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA 4TH CROSS, GOKUL EXTENSION
Location: High Court
of Karnataka TUMAKURU TOWN-572 101.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
ABBINAHOLE POLICE STATION
BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II FOR R-2)
***
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:1282-DB
CRL.A No. 1679 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE READ WITH SECTION 413 OF
BNSS, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT ORDER DATED
7-2-2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN SESSIONS CASE NO.95 OF
2018 IN SO FAR AS ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1/ACCUSED
NO.3 AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED NO.3 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 504, 307, 109 READ WITH 34
OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel
for respondent No.1, and Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned
State Public Prosecutor-II, appearing for the respondent-State.
2. Having perused the grounds urged in the appeal, it
is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the
prosecution had alleged that accused No.3 instigated the other
accused to cause injuries to the victim, and that the trial Court
committed an error in holding that the offence under Section
NC: 2026:KHC:1282-DB
HC-KAR
109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') against
accused No.3 was not proved and acquitted him.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
when accused No.1 was arrested, he gave a voluntary
statement alleging instigation by accused No.3. Learned
counsel also invited the attention of this Court to the evidence
of PW1, PW2, and PW5, who have deposed with regard to the
civil dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that a
criminal case is listed with regard to the earlier incident.
However, the trial Court committed an error in acquitting
accused No.3.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 brought to the notice of this Court that the
trial Court, particularly in paragraph No.118 of the judgment,
has considered the material available on record with respect to
the allegation against accused No.3 that he allegedly abetted
accused No.1 to commit the offence. The trial Court has
observed that there is no material evidence to show that
accused No.3 conspired with the other accused, nor is there
any evidence to establish that they were in contact with each
NC: 2026:KHC:1282-DB
HC-KAR
other or that accused No.3 abetted accused No.1 to commit the
alleged assault on PW1 and PW2. Further, the complaint and
other materials on record disclose that accused No.3 was not
present at the spot at the time of the assault allegedly
committed by accused No.1 by wrongfully restraining and
abusing PW1 and PW2. Hence, it was rightly held that the
prosecution failed to prove the offence against accused No.3.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State also
submits that the material on record discloses the existence of a
civil dispute between the parties, namely accused Nos.1 to 3 on
one hand and PW1 and PW2 on the other, and on that basis
accused No.3 was arraigned invoking Section 109 of the IPC.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it is clear that
for invoking Section 109 of the IPC, either the accused must be
present at the time of the commission of the offence or there
must be evidence of conspiracy. In cases of conspiracy, though
direct evidence may not be available, circumstantial evidence
must be established. In the present case, admittedly, accused
No.3 was not present at the spot. The sole contention of
NC: 2026:KHC:1282-DB
HC-KAR
learned counsel for the appellant is based on the voluntary
statement of accused No.1 alleging abetment by accused No.3.
Such a voluntary statement cannot be treated as Admissible
evidence and can be relied upon only for the purpose of
recovery of material objects. Therefore, the contention of
learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.
7. In order to prove abetment or conspiracy, no
material has been placed on record, and none of the witnesses
have spoken in that regard. Though learned counsel for the
appellant brought to the notice of this Court that PW1 and PW2
have deposed about an earlier incident involving accused No.3,
and admittedly a separate criminal case is pending in respect of
the said earlier incident, merely because there was a prior
quarrel between PW1, PW2, and accused No.3, the accused
cannot be implicated in the present case. The trial Court has
rightly taken note of this aspect in paragraph No.118 and has
correctly concluded that there is no material to establish
abetment and that accused No.3 was not present at the time of
the incident.
NC: 2026:KHC:1282-DB
HC-KAR
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any
ground to admit the appeal or to interfere with the order of
acquittal passed by the trial Court. There being no cogent
material on record against respondent No.1/accused No.3 to
admit the appeal, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
ST,AM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8
