[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri.Chandrashekar K vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 January, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3314-DB
CRL.A No. 2068 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST 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.2068 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR K
S/O KAVERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
OCC FARMER
R/O NO 98, RAYASANDRA
BENGALURU CITY-560099
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M (BY SRI KITUR JAMALSAB IMAMSAB, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE
NOW REPTD. BY SPP.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SHIVA
S/O SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/O No.137, 8TH CROSS
K.R.LAYOUT, 6TH PHASE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3314-DB
CRL.A No. 2068 of 2025
HC-KAR
J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU
TUMKUR-560078
3. SUBRAMANI
S/O SWAMI KANNAN
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT SAGAR BUILDING
BY THE SIDE OF
SIDDALINGESHWARA TALKIES
3RD CROSS, J.P.NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560078
NATIVE PLACE
MADMADI VILLAGE
TIRUKOILUR TALUK
VELAPURAM DISTRICT
TAMILNADU STATE-605757
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II FOR R1;
SRI SHRINIWAS M KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.413 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIKA
SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 02.05.2025 MADE IN
S.C.NO.1159/2015 ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED PERSON 1 AND
2 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 307 R/W
SEC.34 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:3314-DB
CRL.A No. 2068 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of acquittal
dated 02.05.2025 passed in S.C.No.1159/2015 for the offence
punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC by
the LXVII additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
City.
2. This appeal is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that on 19.06.2014 at about 11.10 a.m. in R.S.No.11 of
Rayasandra village within the limits of Parappana Agrahara
police station, Bengaluru, with common intention to commit the
murder of CW1, accused No.1 assaulted CW1 with wooden club
on his head and accused No.2 assaulted CW1 with stone
causing injuries knowingfully well that such injuries may likely
to cause death of a person and an attempt was made to take
away the life of CW1. Hence, invoked the offence punishable
under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC against the
accused persons.
NC: 2026:KHC:3314-DB
HC-KAR
4. On securing the presence of the accused persons,
the Trial Court framed the charge against them and the
accused did not plead guilty and claims for trail. Hence, the
prosecution in order to substantiate its case examined 12
witnesses as PW1 to PW12 and got marked the documents at
Ex.P1 to P7 and also got marked the material objects at MO1
and MO2.
5. The Trial Court having appreciated both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record discussed the evidence
of each of the witnesses from paragraphs 9 to 20 i.e., both
chief evidence as well as evidence in cross-examination. Having
considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record, the Trial Court from paragraph 21 onwards discussed
the evidence of PW1 wherein PW1 claims that accused
assaulted him and CW2 came to the spot and at that time,
accused ran away from the spot. But the evidence of PW1 and
his complaint is totally silent about being accompanied him by
anyone more so ever by PW2. But PW2 stated that PW1 had
called him to his land there he showed him the place where the
accused were intending to put up a construction. But he has
NC: 2026:KHC:3314-DB
HC-KAR
stated that he had witnessed the accused persons assaulting
CW1 with a club and a black marble tile. Further, his evidence
is silent regarding the presence of CW2 at the spot since PW1
had telephoned PW2 and later on, he came to the spot. PW2 in
his cross-examination elicited that PW1 had called to his house.
The said evidence contradicts with the prosecution case since
that is not to the place of incident but called to his house.
6. The Trial Court also taken note of the evidence of
PW3 who is also the cousin brother of PW1. He deposed about
witnessing the incident and admitting PW1 to the hospital. But
in the cross-examination, it is elicited that when the incident
occurred, he was in the land and he has also stated that he has
tried to pacify them. But the same is silent from his evidence
that PW2 was at the spot and even PW1 and PW2 also not
stated very presence of PW3.
7. The Trial Court also taken note of the evidence of
PW7 wherein he deposed that he came to know that accused
have assaulted PW1. But he says that he had seen the accused
running away from the spot. But his evidence is silent with
regard to the presence of PW2 at the spot at the time of the
NC: 2026:KHC:3314-DB
HC-KAR
incident. PW6 also deposed that he witnessed the assault. But
his evidence is silent regarding the presence of CW2 and CW3
at the spot at the time of the incident. All these materials were
taken note of by the Trial Court wherein though witnesses
depose that they have witnessed the incident, but the very fact
that PW1 injured himself says that he called PW2 and not
speaks anything about the very presence of PW2, PW3 and
PW6 and so also PW7. All these materials are contradictory to
each other.
8. The Trial Court also taken note of the evidence of
the doctor who has been examined before the Court as PW10
and his evidence is also very clear that the injured did not
mention the name of the assailant when he came to the
Hospital. But he found facial injury and the same is grievous in
nature. He did not ask the injured to take the X-ray and his
evidence is that injured was inpatient for one day. But the
evidence of PW1 and PW2 is contrary to the evidence of the
doctor. Apart from that Trial Court also taken note of the fact
that the blood stained clothes were not seized and PW12-IO
categorically says that he reached the spot at 12.45 p.m. and
NC: 2026:KHC:3314-DB
HC-KAR
he did not notice any blood stains on the cloth of the injured
and even he did not send the club and stone i.e., MO1 and MO2
to FSL and clothes were also not seized. Having taken note of
the material available on record particularly, the evidence of
PW1 who has given the evidence as against the contents of the
complaint and considering very genesis of the crime is
concerned, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the
case was doubtful and thus, acquitted the accused.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would vehemently contend that the Trial Court not properly
considered the evidence available on record and magnified the
minor contradictions of the witnesses and the same will not go
to the very root of the case of the prosecution. Even if no case
is made out to Section 307 of IPC, ought to have invoked
Section 324 of IPC as there was a grievous injury and injury is
also inflicted with the club and also with the stone. The very
evidence of the doctor is very clear that on examination, he
found lacerated wound over right temporo parietal region and
facial abrasion and issued the wound certificate and the same is
not properly considered by the Trial Court. The counsel also
NC: 2026:KHC:3314-DB
HC-KAR
would submit that the evidence of PW6 corroborates with the
evidence of PW1 and the same is not considered by the Trial
Court.
10. The learned SPP-II Mr. Vijayakumar Magage
appearing for the State also supports the case of the
complainant/appellant and also brought to notice of this Court
paragraph 31 of the judgment of the Trial Court wherein PW1
categorically stated that accused persons trying to put a
foundation in his land and at that time, this scuffle was taken
place and assaulted him.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the
accused/respondent Nos.2 and 3 vehemently contend that Trial
Court in detail discussed the material available on record and
also counsel would submit that there was a dispute with regard
to the land is concerned but no such incident was taken place
and the prosecution has not substantiated that PW1 had
sustained the injury on account of assault made by accused
Nos.1 and 2 and nothing is placed on record in this regard.
Genesis of the crime is not forthcoming and the same is
appreciated by the Trial Court while appreciating the evidence
NC: 2026:KHC:3314-DB
HC-KAR
in paragraph 25 onwards and having considered the evidence
of all the witnesses and the injured even not stated the name
of the assailant when he went to the doctor. Hence, no grounds
are made on to admit the appeal.
12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also on perusal of the material on
record, it discloses that the case of the prosecution is that on
particular date i.e., on 19.06.2014 at 11.10 a.m., the incident
was taken place. In order to prove the factum of the incident is
concerned, though prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW1
to PW7, in the evidence of PW1 though he claims that PW2 was
present, but the material discloses that he was called PW2 to
the spot after the incident. The other witnesses i.e., PW3, PW4,
PW5 and PW6 support the case of prosecution including PW7
and their evidence is also very clear that they have not
witnessed the incident and only comes to the spot after the
incident though claimed as witnessed the incident. Apart from
that PW1 has not stated anything about the very presence of
these witnesses at the time of the incident is concerned and
also the contents of the complaint is not corroborated with the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3314-DB
HC-KAR
oral evidence of PW1 hence, PW1 evidence is contradictory with
the contents of his complaint.
13. No doubt, the Court can rely upon the evidence of
PW1 who is a injured witness. But the injured witness evidence
should be credible and trustworthy. Here there are material
contradictions as against Ex.P1 as well as the oral evidence of
PW1. Apart from that evidence of other witnesses is not
trustworthy. The doctor who has been examined as PW10
found only injury on the face and also not found any blood
stains on the cloth of the injured and even PW12-IO also not
found any blood stains and no clothes were also seized. Even
though MO1 and MO2 were seized, IO says that it has blood
stain, but not sent to the FSL and there is no such report also.
When there is no FSL report evidencing the fact that in the
club, blood stains of the injured was also found, these factors
were taken note of by the Trial Court. The Trial Court
particularly discussed the evidence of the doctor in paragraph
18 wherein he categorically deposed that injured even not
stated that the accused only inflicted the injury when he
brought to the hospital. Paragraph 21 onwards, the Trial Court
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3314-DB
HC-KAR
discussed the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW6 and
PW7. PW6 evidence also taken note of in paragraph 24 since
the counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently
contend that evidence of PW6 was not taken note of.
14. The Trial Court taken note of the evidence of PW6
and PW7 who are the independent witnesses, but the Trial
Court comes to the conclusion that their evidence is also self
contradictory and inconsistent in nature and same cannot be
relied upon to come to the conclusion regarding the manner in
which the alleged offence had taken place. The Trial Court also
taken note that even PW1 not stated that PW6 was also very
much present at the time of the incident except calling upon
PW2. The Trial Court in detail discussed the evidence available
on record from paragraph 25 onwards till paragraph 32 and
even taken note of lapses on the part of the Investigating
Officer who also not seized the cloth. But his evidence is very
clear that no blood stains were found in the cloth. Even the
doctor also says that no blood stains were found. Hence, the
Court cannot comes to a conclusion that clothes were not
seized. When the blood stains were not found in the cloth, the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3314-DB
HC-KAR
question of seizing the same also does not arise. When such
being the case, we do not find any ground to admit the appeal.
15. The records discloses that the State also not filed
any appeal against the acquittal order. Only the victim has filed
the present appeal. On perusal of the records, it discloses that
there was a land dispute between the parties and the same is
evident even in the defence also. Thus, this Court is of the
opinion that only on coming to the conclusion that there was a
land dispute and the alleged incident has taken place in this
connection cannot be assumed and presumed in the absence of
cogent evidence as there is no corroboration.
16. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the
following:
ORDER.
The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
SN
