K J Umesha vs State Of Karnataka By
2026 Latest Caselaw 2373 Kant

Karnataka High Court

K J Umesha vs State Of Karnataka By on 17 March, 2026

                          -1-
                                      CRL.A No.987 of 2018


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
        DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                        BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.987 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

1.    K J UMESHA
      S/O JAVAREGOWDA
      AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
      R/O KEMPISIDDANAHUNDI VILLAGE
      NANJANGUD TALUK,
      MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 301.

2.    K J NAGESHA
      S/O JAVAREGOWDA,
      AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
      R/O KEMPISIDDANAHUNDI VILLAGE
      NANJANGUD TALUK,
      MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 301.
                                             ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. H.S. CHANDRAMOULI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
 SRI. RAJATH, ADV.)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
NANJANGUD RURAL POLICE STATION
NANJANGUD, MYSURU - 571 301

REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                            ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)
                                -2-
                                          CRL.A No.987 of 2018


      THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.05.2018 PASSED BY THE
I    ADDITIONAL     SESSIONS     JUDGE,    MYSURU    IN
S.C.NO.291/2014 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 AND 326 OF IPC AND
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 324 OF
IPC.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT    ON   16.12.2025  AND  COMING   ON   FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                        CAV JUDGMENT

1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25th May,

2018 passed in SC No.291 of 2014 by the I Additional Sessions

Judge, Mysuru (for short "the trial Court").

2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to

as per their status and rank before the trial Court.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W.1 and P.W.2, who

are brothers, are cousins of Accused No.1 and Accused No.2.

Their residential houses as well as their agricultural lands are

situated adjacent to each other. It is alleged that for about two

years prior to the incident there existed a dispute regarding the

boundary of the agricultural lands between the parties.

According to the prosecution, Accused No.1 and Accused No.2

had encroached upon the land belonging to P.W.1 and P.W.2 by

breaking the ridge (locally called "Badu" in Kannada) separating

the fields, which resulted in frequent quarrels between them.

4. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 03.01.2014,

in the morning hours, Accused No.1 again broke the ridge

between the fields using a tractor. In the background of this

incident, at about 5.30 p.m. on the same day, P.W.2 went near

the house of the accused where Accused No.1 and Accused

No.2 were sitting on the platform (Jagali) in front of their house

and questioned them regarding the breaking of the ridge. At

that time, Accused No.1 allegedly abused P.W.2 in vulgar

language. When P.W.2 objected to the abusive language used

by Accused No.1, the latter went inside the house, brought a

machete (M.O.1) and assaulted P.W.2 on the head, causing

serious injuries.

5. The prosecution further alleges that upon witnessing the

assault on his elder brother, P.W.1 intervened in order to

rescue him. At that time, Accused No.2 abused P.W.1 stating

that he had come to support his brother, caught hold of P.W.1

and assaulted him with a long machete (M.O.2), thereby

causing an injury on the right side of his neck. It is stated that

by that time P.W.3 and P.W.4 arrived at the spot, intervened in

the matter, and snatched the weapons from the accused.

Thereafter, arrangements were made to shift the injured

persons to the hospital.

6. Accordingly, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were taken on a motorbike to

the Government Hospital at Nanjangud where they were given

first aid treatment and were subsequently referred to K.R.

Hospital for further treatment. On the next day, i.e., on

04.01.2014, P.W.8, a Police Constable, visited K.R. Hospital

and recorded the complaint of P.W.1 at about 5.00 p.m., which

was marked as Ex.P1. Based on the said complaint, a case was

registered at 6.15 p.m. in Crime No.09/2014 as per the FIR

marked at Ex.P18.During the course of investigation, Accused

No.1 was apprehended by P.W.10 on 05.01.2014 and produced

before the police station where P.W.13, the Assistant Sub-

Inspector, arrested him and produced him before the Court.

Thereafter, P.W.13 attempted to conduct the spot mahazar on

06.01.2014 but could not do so due to the non-availability of

eyewitnesses to identify the spot. Consequently, the

investigation was handed over to P.W.11, the Police Sub-

Inspector, who conducted the spot mahazar on 07.01.2014 in

the presence of witnesses at the place shown by P.W.4. During

the mahazar proceedings, the weapons used in the offence,

namely M.O.1 and M.O.2, along with blood-stained clothes

marked as M.O.3 and M.O.4, were seized.

7. The Investigating Officer thereafter forwarded the seized

material objects to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory

(RFSL) for examination in order to ascertain the presence of

blood stains. The RFSL report revealed that M.O.1 to M.O.4

were stained with human blood of 'O' group. The seized

weapons were also sent to the doctor concerned for opinion,

and the doctor opined that the injuries sustained by P.W.1 and

P.W.2 could have been caused by the said weapons. Upon

completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed

the charge sheet against the accused for the offences alleged

against them.

8. The Trial Court framed charges against Accused No.1 and

Accused No.2 for the aforesaid offences on 13.02.2015. The

accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be

tried. During the course of the trial, both Accused No.1 and

Accused No.2 were on bail and were represented by counsel of

their choice.In order to prove its case, the prosecution

examined fourteen witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.14. The

prosecution also produced and marked documentary evidence

as Exhibits P1 to P22 and material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.4.

After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of

the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, wherein the incriminating circumstances

appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were

put to them. The accused denied all such incriminating

evidence. However, the accused did not choose to lead any

defence evidence on their behalf.

9. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court

has convicted accused NO.1 for the offence under Section 307

and 326 IPC and accused No.2 was convicted for the offence

under Section 324 IPC. However, the trial court has acquitted

the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Sections 324,

504 r/w 34 IPC and the Trial Court has also acquitted the

accused No.2 for the offence under Sections 307, 326, 504 r/w

34 IPC.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that

the alleged incident took place on 03rd January 2014, at about

5:30 p.m., statement was recorded by the Nanjanagudu Police

on 04th January, 2014 at about 06.15 p.m. There is an

inordinate delay of 28 hours in putting the criminal law into

motion. It is the case of the prosecution that after the incident,

the injured were at Nanjanagud Government Hospital.Again on

07-01-2014 re-statement was recorded ,in that the injured

were admitted on 03.01.2014 at about 7-15PM for treatment

in KR Hospital Mysuru. The injured, who were attended by

PW6-Dr. Mamata, has not intimated to the local police since

though it is Medico-legal case. According to the prosecution

case, the offence was said to have been committed at about

05.30 pm on 03.01.2014. They were in Nanjingudu Hospital at

about 06.00 p.m. and thereafter they were shifted to Care

Hospital, Mysore. Further, he would submit that prosecution

has failed to prove that there was destruction of ridges existing

in between the lands of accused no. 1 and 2 and that of PW1

and PW2 as alleged by the prosecution. The observation made

by the learned session judge that it is not material is incorrect,

as the same is basic cause for the alleged incident. That there

is a long delay in lodging the complaint. There is a long delay in

seizure of MO1 and 2 from the possession of PW3 and PW4,

who are interested witnesses. The delay is only to manipulate

the records by artificially creating blood stains of 'O' group as

belonging to PW1 and PW2. The learned Sessions judge has

failed to notice that No independent witnesses were examined

by the prosecution. The learned Judge has failed to appreciate

that measurements of injuries were not mentioned in the

wound certificate, which creates doubt regarding genuineness

of the injuries sustained by PW1 and PW2. The accused no.1

was aged about 19 years and accused no.2 was aged about 23

years and both of them were unmarried as on the date of

alleged incident. The alleged dispute was in respect of land

boundary and PW1 and PW2 themselves had allegedly gone to

the house of accused no. 1 and PW2. There is no intention or

motive to commit murder of PW1 and PW2 or to cause grievous

hurt to PW1 and PW2 or to commit any offence. The accused,

PW1 and PW2 are residing in the same house bearing No.80

with temporary partitions. They have to see faces of each other

every day as they are living under one roof. The alleged

incident of boundary dispute had taken place about 2 years

back between the parties and no other incident had taken place

till the date of the alleged incident. The learned Sessions Judge

has failed to notice the same has resulted in grave injustice to

the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has wrongly come to

the conclusion that non-proof of incident which took place in

the morning on 03.01.2014 is not fatal to the case of the

prosecution. Since no such incident has taken place, the police

have not investigated the same to suppress the truth.

Therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the

prosecution. That the medical evidence regarding the treatment

of PW2 in NIMHANS goes to show that, health of the PW2 was

stable and normal on 07.01.2014 and PW2 was not required to

be admitted as an inpatient in the hospital. Hence, he was

treated as outpatient and sent home. PW14-Sampath,

Professor of Neurosurgery, NIMHANS who examined PW2, has

clearly stated in his evidence that condition of PW2 was normal

and had sustained mild head injury and therefore he was not

admitted as an inpatient. Hence the treatment of PW2 in a

private Apollo Hospital, Mysore was only to create false

evidence to harass the accused. The private hospital has

unnecessarily created false medical records for extraneous

reasons and with a view to get money from government under

Yashswini scheme. There was no necessity to conduct

operation on PW2 by the above-said private hospital. The

alleged injury could have been cured only by medicine. The

prosecution has suppressed the fact that PW2 was suffering

from neuro issue before the alleged incident. There is no prima

facie case against the accused. The charges were not properly

framed. The learned sessions judge has failed to appreciate

that accused no. 1 and 2 and PW1 and PW2 are sons of late C.

Jawaregowda and Mr. Kadegowda, who are brothers and are

residing under same roof. The accused no. 1 is likely to come

in contact with hardened criminals if he is continued in jail. The

trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper

perspective. Though there is no cogent, convincing, clinching

evidence to convict the accused, trial Court has convicted the

accused, which is not sustainable under law. On all these

grounds, it is sought to allow this appeal.

- 10 -

11. As against this, learned HCGP appearing for the

respondent-State would submit that the trial Court has properly

appreciated the materials and record in accordance with law

and facts and hence sought for dismissal of the appeal.

12. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following

points would arise for my consideration:

1. Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting

the accused No.1 for the offence under Sections

307 and 326 IPC?

2. Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting

the accused no.2 for the offence under Section

324 IPC?

3. What order?

13. My answer to the above point are:

Point No.1: In the Negative

Point No.2: In the Negative

Point No.3: as per final order.

14. REASONS POINT 1 AND 2: I have examined the

materials placed above the spot. This case arose out of the

complaint filed by K. K. Nagaraj son of Kadegowda. The

alleged incident took place on 03.01.2014 at 05.30 p.m. near

the house of the accused. The complaint filed by the

complainant K. K. Nagraj on 04.01.2014 at 17 hours in the

- 11 -

Surgical Ward of Care Hospital, Mysuru. On the basis of this

complaint, the police have registered the case in Crime No.9 of

2014 for the offence under Sections 341, 307, 504, read with

34 IPC. On the basis of the written complaint, the FIR was

submitted to the court on 04.01.2014 at 09.30 pm as per

Exhibit P18.

15. In First Information Report-Exhibit P18, in Column No.3C,

IO has not explained anything as to the delay in filing the

complaint. In column 13 of the First Information Report, as to

date and time of dispatching the FIR to the court, it is shown as

04.01.2014 at 18.45 hours. However the Judicial Magistrate

has endorsed on Exhibit P18 that he has received the FIR on

04.01.2014 at 09.30 p.m. The delay in dispatching this FIR to

the court has not been explained by the prosecution. PW2. The

prosecution witnesses have also not deposed anything as to

delaying of filing the complaint. The non-explanation of delay in

filing the complaint will create reasonable doubt as to the

alleged incident.It is seen ,there is an unexplained delay in

lodging the First Information Report, which goes to the root of

the prosecution case and renders it doubtful.

16. The alleged incident is stated to have occurred on

03.01.2014 at about 5.30 p.m., whereas the complaint was

recorded only on 04.01.2014 at about 5.00 p.m. and the FIR

- 12 -

came to be registered thereafter. The prosecution has not

offered any satisfactory or plausible explanation for this delay.

It is well settled that prompt lodging of an FIR lends credibility

to the prosecution case, whereas unexplained delay creates

room for embellishment, deliberation and false implication. In

Rema Raghavan v. State of Kerala (2024 Supreme (Ker) 1128),

the Court held that where there is a delay in lodging the FIR,

the prosecution must furnish a plausible explanation and in the

absence of such explanation, the delay may prove fatal to the

prosecution case.Further, the present case admittedly arises

out of a long-standing land and boundary dispute between the

parties, indicating prior enmity. In cases involving prior

animosity, the possibility of exaggeration or false implication

cannot be ruled out, particularly when the FIR is lodged after a

considerable delay. The Courts have consistently cautioned that

delay in lodging the complaint, coupled with prior enmity,

assumes greater significance and requires careful scrutiny. In

Achhar Singh v. State of Punjab (1984 Supreme (P&H) 369), it

was observed that when there exists previous enmity between

the parties, delay in lodging the FIR raises a serious doubt

regarding the genuineness of the prosecution version and may

indicate false implication.

- 13 -

17. In addition to that the prosecution has failed to examine

the Investigating Officer, whose evidence is crucial to explain

the circumstances surrounding the delay and the manner in

which the investigation was conducted. The non-examination of

the Investigating Officer causes serious prejudice to the

accused, particularly in a case where delay in registration of the

FIR is a significant factor requiring clarification. In Binod Murmu

v. State of Jharkhand (2023 Supreme (Jhk) 270), it was held

that non-examination of the Investigating Officer may result in

prejudice to the accused, especially when material aspects such

as delay in lodging the FIR and investigation procedure remain

unexplained.In view of the above settled principles of law, the

unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, when considered along

with the admitted prior enmity between the parties and the

non-examination of the Investigating Officer, creates a serious

doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. Such

delay provides scope for deliberation and false implication and

therefore becomes fatal to the prosecution case. Consequently,

the benefit of doubt ought to be extended to the accused.

18. The PW1 KK Nagaraj Has deposed in his evidence that

evidence regarding the land dispute between the accused and

the complainant. Further he has deposed in his evidence that

- 14 -

Evidence as stated in his complaint. Next for PW2, K. K.

Shivanandu, another injured. He has also deposed as to the

assault made by the accused.

19. It is further pertinent to note that P.W.3, who has been

projected as an eyewitness by the prosecution, is the sister's

son of P.W.2. Thus, P.W.3 is a close relative of the injured

witness and belongs to the same family. In such circumstances,

his evidence cannot be treated as that of an independent

witness and therefore requires careful and cautious scrutiny by

the Court. When the prosecution case mainly rests upon the

testimony of interested witnesses who are closely related to the

complainant party, the Court must look for independent

corroboration before placing reliance on such testimony.

20. In the present case, except for the evidence of the

injured witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the related witness

P.W.3, the prosecution has not examined any independent

witness to support its case, though the alleged incident is said

to have taken place in front of the house of the accused.

Moreover, another alleged eyewitness P.W.4 - Rachaiah, who is

also the witness said to have shown the place of occurrence for

the spot mahazar (Ex.P7) conducted on 07.01.2014 at about

10.00 a.m., has not supported the prosecution case and has

turned hostile.

- 15 -

21. Therefore, when the evidence of P.W.3, who is a close

relative of P.W.2, is considered along with the fact that P.W.4

has turned hostile and there is no independent corroboration,

the prosecution version becomes doubtful. In criminal cases,

where the prosecution relies primarily on the testimony of

interested witnesses, the absence of independent corroboration

assumes significance. Consequently, these circumstances

create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case,

entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.

22. The medical evidence on record does not support the

prosecution case with regard to the alleged seriousness of the

injuries sustained by P.W.2. The records relating to the

treatment of P.W.2 at NIMHANS disclose that when P.W.2 was

examined on 07.01.2014, his condition was found to be stable

and normal and he was treated only as an outpatient. P.W.14 -

Dr. Sampath, Professor of Neurosurgery at NIMHANS, who

examined P.W.2, has clearly stated in his evidence that P.W.2

had sustained only a mild head injury and his condition was

normal, and therefore there was no necessity to admit him as

an inpatient. This medical opinion, according to the learned

counsel, casts serious doubt on the prosecution allegation that

P.W.2 had sustained grievous or life-threatening injuries so as

to attract the offence under Section 307 of the IPC.It can be

- 16 -