[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Raju @ Raja vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 March, 2026
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1865 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1 SRI.RAJU @ RAJA
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YERS
R/O CHOWDAIAHNAPALYA
KESARAMDU ROAD,
KYATHASANDRA-572104
TUMAKURU TOWN.
2 SRI. NAGARAJA S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O CHOWDAIAHNAPALYA
KESARAMADU ROAD
KYATHASANDRA-572104
TUMAKURU TOWN.
3 SMT. RAMYA W/O RAJU @ RAJA
R/O CHOWDAIAHNAPALYA
KESARAMADU ROAD
KYATHASANDRA-572104
TUMAKURU TOWN.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
KYATHASANDRA POLICE STATION
TUMAKURU. EPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
AMBEDKAR BEEDI
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)
-2-
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
TUMAKURU IN S.C.NO.97/2022 DATED 25.09.2024
CONVICTING APPELLANTS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHALBE
UNDER SECTION 323, 326 R/W. SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL
CODE, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, WITH COST.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 09.01.2026, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT" THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
The appellants have preferred this appeal against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Trial Court') in S.C.No.97/2022 dated
25.09.2024.
2. The parties herein are referred to as per their
rank before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are
that, Kyathasandra Police have submitted the charge sheet
against the accused for the offence under Sections 323, 326,
307 r/w Section 34 of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution
that accused no.1-Raju alias Raja and accused no.2
Nagaraja, CW2-Shruthi C.S. and CW3-Revanna alias Ravi are
cousins. Three years prior to the date of incident, accused
nos.1 to 3 were residing in the house constructed in land
bearing Sy.No.11/4 of Kyathasandra Village belonged to
CW2. On 23.08.2021 at 03.30 p.m. CW2-Shruthi C.S. along
with CW1-Srinvas Gowda, CW3-Revanna alias Ravi and
CW4-Ganesha went near the house situated at
Chowdaiahnapalya and asked the accused to vacate the
house. For that, accused threatened that if CW1 to CW4 do
not register the house in the name of accused, they would
kill them one by one and get the property. Thereafter, with
an intention to commit murder, accused no.1 brought
chopper from the house and chased CW1 to kill him and
assaulted on his left leg, shank and toe of left foot and
caused grievous injuries to him. Accused no.2 assaulted
CW1 with club on his head and caused grievous injuries to
him and accused no.3 and scratched CW2 on her body with
hands by making her to fall on the ground who came to
pacify the quarrel and caused simple injuries to her. On
thorough investigation, the I.O. has submitted the charge
sheet against the accused.
4. After filing the charge sheet, case was registered
in CC.No.21096/2021. Thereafter case was committed to the
Court of Sessions and registered in SC.No.97/2022. The
accused were enlarged on bail.
5. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court has
framed the charges for the alleged commission of offence.
Same were read over and explained to the accused. Having
understood the same accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
6. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all, 17
witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW17. Twenty
documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P20. Six material
objects were marked as MO1 to 6. On closure of prosecution
side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was
recorded. Accused had totally denied the evidence of
prosecution witnesses and they have specifically stated that
they have not committed any offence as alleged and a false
complaint has been filed against them. They have filed a
complaint, but police did not receive the same.
7. On behalf of the accused, one Lakshmi
Kantharaju alias L.K.Raju is examined as DW1 and one
document is marked as Ex.D1. Having heard the arguments
on both sides, the trial Court has acquitted the accused for
the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC and convicted
the accused for the commission of offences under Sections
323 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC. Being aggrieved by this
judgment, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
8. The Learned counsel for the appellants Sri. Harish
N.R., would submit that the judgment of conviction and
order on sentence passed by the trial Court is highly illegal
besides being erroneous. The trial Court has not considered
the contradictory statements and improved version of the
complainant and other witnesses. The trial Court has
considered only and solely on the basis of interested
witnesses. The trial Court has not considered the dispute
between the accused and the complaint as to the residential
house. As per the complaint allegation, the complainant is
the resident of Kadaburu village of Gowribidanur Taluk and
he was caught by the complainant by hatching a plan to evict
the accused from the house on one or the other way and the
instant complaint is result of the said conspiracy. The
complainant has clearly stated that at the time of alleged
incident while he was running, he fell on the ground. The
wound certificate-Ex.P8 coupled with doctor's evidence
clearly goes to show that injuries suffered by CW1 are over
his toe of left foot and shank of left leg. Therefore, it could
be clearly gathered that the injuries suffered by CW1 could
be due to fall and not due to assault by the accused by using
MO1. But the trial Court, without considering these logical
aspects of the matter, passed the impugned judgment
convicting the accused for the offence under Section 326 of
IPC. The injury suffered by CW1 is lacerated wound over his
forehead alleged to have suffered by him due to assault by
accused no.2 by using MO4. But in fact, at no stretch of
imagination, lacerated wound could be caused over forehead
by using wooden club like MO4. The trial Court also lost its
sight over this logical aspect of the matter while passing the
impugned judgment. CWs1 to 5 created a false story of
assault by accused No.3 by concocting the medical
documents of CW2. The said concoction is evident by the
fact that in the wound certificate-Ex.P10 there is mention as
to hit by sharp instrument and wooden stick. Though there is
no allegation in the complaint or in the entire charge sheet
material regarding assault by accused No.3 by using an
instrument or wooden stick, the trial Court ought to have
taken note of the aforesaid aspect of the matter while
passing the impugned judgment. Further it is submitted that
CW5-Srinivasa who has been examined as PW.6 has deposed
that he has purchased the property from CW7 and this
witness appeared before the Court and gave his evidence
without any summons from the Court which clearly goes to
show that prosecution witnesses who are all claiming to be
the eye-witnesses have colluded each other to implicate the
accused in a false criminal case. The spot mahazar, seizure
mahazar and the witnesses are all planted witnesses. They
have also not fully supported the case of the prosecution.
CW2 in her evidence stated that she has given complaint
before the police on 20.08.2021, but the said complaint is
not forthcoming in the charge sheet to establish the factual
aspect. The police have not produced the weapons MOs1 to
4 before the Doctor to give his opinion with regard to usage
of the said weapons for the commission of offence. As per
the case of the prosecution, accused nos.1 and 2 and CW2
are siblings and co-sharers. CW3 is the husband of CW2 and
CW2 is said to be the owner of the land in which house is
constructed and in which accused nos.1 to 3 have been
residing. It is the case of prosecution that CW3 brought JCB
and demolished the cowshed which was constructed by the
accused and also it is the specific case of the prosecution
that CW1, who is the uncle of CW3, was asked to come from
Kadaburu village of Gowribidanur Taluk.
9. From the above said facts and circumstances, it
could be clearly gathered that CW1 to CW3 were aggressive
and gone to the extent of demolishing the cowshed by using
JCB and also lodged a false complaint in order to pressurise
the accused to vacate the house. As per the case of the
prosecution, the IO collected the blood stained mud-MO2
from the alleged place of incident on 24.08.2021. In fact
there was heavy rain in the evening on 23.08.2021, that is
after the incident alleged to have taken place at 03.00 to
03.30 p.m. Under these circumstances the chance of
prosecution getting the blood stained mud on 24.08.2021 is
highly impossible. As such the story of collection of blood
stained mud-MO3 is created and concocted. X-Ray is not
produced and radiology report is also not produced. The I.O.
has not explained anything as to non-production of X-ray
reports and X-ray film. The injured was admitted to the
hospital only for a day. Exs.P8 and P10 are the wound
certificates. Name of the accused was not mentioned in the
wound certificate. PW.11-Doctor has not whispered anything
as to the name and weapons used for the commission of
offence. PW.2 has clearly admitted in his evidence in
paragraph No.7 that the accused were used to tie the cattle
in the cattle shed which belongs to them and they informed
the accused to vacate the same. But they did not vacate,
hence they had removed the shed through JCB, then the
galata was started. PW.2 has clearly admitted in paragraph
No.8 that he has filed a civil suit against the accused before
the Court at Tumakur. PW.6 is said to be the independent
witness. He has clearly admitted that before issuing
summons by the Court, he voluntarily appeared before the
Court as CW.4 has informed the date over phone to him. The
Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on
record in a proper perspective manner and convicted the
accused for the commission of offence under Sections 323
and 326 r/w 34 of IPC, which is not sustainable under law.
On these grounds, it is sought for allowing of the appeal. To
substantiate his arguments, he relied on the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of State Vs.
- 10 -
Sheenappa Gowda and Others, reported in 2011 (4)
KCCR 2759 (DB).
10. As against this, learned HCGP appearing for the
respondent-State would submit that the trial Court has
properly appreciated the materials on record in accordance
with law and facts and that absolutely there are no grounds
to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and
order on sentence passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, he
sought for dismissal of the appeal.
11. 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 for the offence under Sections 323
and 326 of IPC?
2. What order?
12. My answer to the above points are:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per final order.
Regarding Point No.1:
13. I have examined the materials placed before the
Court. The Investigating Officer has submitted the charge
- 11 -
sheet for the commission of offence under Sections 323, 326
and 307 r/w 34 of IPC. The Trial Court has acquitted the
accused Nos.1 to 3 for the commission of offence under
Sections 307 r/w 34 of IPC. However, convicted the accused for
the commission of offence under Sections 323, 326 r/w 34 of
IPC.
14. The genesis of this case arise from the complaint
filed by PW.1-Srinivasagowda as per Ex.P1. It is appropriate to
mention here as to the complaint at Ex.P1 which reads as
under:
"ºÉýPÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:
23.08.2021
²æäªÁ¸ÀUËqÀ ©£ï ªÉAPÀl±ÁåªÀÄ¥Àà 50 ªÀµð
À ¸ÁzÀgÀÄ fgÁ¬ÄÛ, PÀq§
À ÆgÀÄ,
UËj©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ: aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ f¯É.è ªÉÆÃ:9900734414.
£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄ®ÌAqÀ «¼Á¸Àz°
À è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÃÛ £É. ¢£ÁAPÀ 23.08.2021 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß CtÚ£À
ªÀÄUÀ£À ºÉAqÀw ±ÀÈwgÀªg
À ÀÄ ªÉÄʸÀÆj¤AzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀéAvÀ ªÀģɬÄgÀĪÀ PÁåvAÀì zÀæ
§½¬ÄgÀĪÀ ZËqÀAiÀÄå£À ¥Á¼ÀåPÉÌ §gÀÄwÛzÉÝêÉ. ¤ÃªÀÅ §¤ß JAzÀÄ £À£U
À É w½¹zÀÄÝ.
CzÀgAÀ vÉ £Á£ÀÄ F ¢£À ªÀÄzÁåºÀßzÀ ªÉüÉUÉ ZËqÀAiÀÄå£À ¥Á¼ÀåPÉÌ §AzÉ£ÀÄ C°è £À£Àß
CtÚ ªÀÄUÀ UÀuÃÉ ±À, UÀuÃÉ ±À£À ºÉAqÀw ±ÉÊw, ±ÀÈw zÉÆqÀ¥
Ø Àà£À ªÀÄUÀ gÉêÀtÚ @ gÀ«
EzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ «ZÁgÀ ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ ±ÀÈwAiÀÄ ºÉ¸j
À £À°g
è ÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ±ÀÈwAiÀÄ
zÉÆqÀ¥
Ø Àà£À ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ gÁd, £ÁUÀgÁdÄ gÀªg
À ÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝPÉÆArzÀÄÝ. £ÁªÀÅ
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À«gÀ®Ä §A¢zÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀÝPÉÌ ¤ÃªÀÅ MAzÀÄ gÀÆ«Ä£À°è EjÃ
£ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®èªAÉ zÀÄ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ ºÁUÀÆ ±ÀÈwAiÀÄÄ UÀAqÀ¤UÉ
eÉ.¹.© vÀg®
À Ä ºÉý µÉÃqÀ£ÀÄß PÉq«
À ¹zÀÄÝ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄzÀå¹ÛPÉ ªÀ»¹ gÁd ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
£ÁUÀgÁd £À£Àß CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀjUÉ ©lÄÖPÉÆr JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÉ CzÀPÉÌ ±ÀÈwAiÀÄÄ
£À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ©ÃUÀ PÉÆr JAzÀÄ gÁd£À£ÀÄß PÉüÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃVzÀÝPÉÌ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä
- 12 -
ºÉ¸j
À UÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆlÄÖ gÀf¸ÀÖgï ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆlÖgÃÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¤ÃªÀÅ G½AiÀÄÄwÛÃgÁ E¯Áè
JAzÀgÉ M¨ÉÆâ§âg£
À ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁr £ÀªÀÄä D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àqz
É ÀÄPÉƼÀª
î ÀÅvɪ
Û AÉ zÀÄ ºÉýzÀªg
À É
gÁd JA§ÄªÀ£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÉƼÀUq
À ¬
É ÄAzÀ ªÀÄZÀ£
Ñ ÀÄß »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÉƯÉ
ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÁV Nr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸Àé®à zÀÆgÀ Nr ºÉÆÃV ©zÀÄÝ ºÉÆÃzÉ
DUÀ gÁdÄ£ÀÄ ªÀÄaѤAzÀ £À£Àß JqÀ PÁ°UÉ, JqÀ¥ÁzÀzÀ ¨Ég½
À UÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ
gÀPU
ÀÛ ÁAiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀ£ÀÄ. £ÁUÀgÁd£ÀÄ zÉÆuÉß vÉUz
É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß vÀ¯U
É É §®ªÁV
ºÉÆqÉz£
À ÀÄ. CµÀÖg°
À è »AzÉ Nr §AzÀ gÉêÀtÚ @ gÀ« ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæªÀÄzÀ PÉ®ªÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ
DUÀ gÁd, £ÁUÀgÁd £À£ÀߣÀÄß ©lÄÖ Nr ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß CtÚ£À ªÀÄUÀ£À ºÉAqÀw
±ÀÈwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÁd£À ºÉAqÀw gÀªÀÄå¼ÀÄ PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ PɼPÀ ÌÉ PÉq«
À PÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÀgZ
À ÁrzÀݼAÉ zÀÄ
UÉÆvÁÛAiÀÄÄæ. F WÀl£É £Àqz
É ÁUÀ ªÀÄzÁåºÀß 3.30 UÀAmÉAiÀiÁVvÀÄ.Û £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß, ±ÀÈw
E§âg£
À ÀÄß aQvÉU
ì ÁV PÁgÀ£°
À è ¹zÀÝUAÀ UÁ D¸ÀàvU
Éæ É PÀgz
É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß
M¼ÀgÉÆÃVAiÀiÁV zÁR°¹ aQvÉì PÉÆr¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É ±ÀÈwAiÀÄ£ÀÆß ºÉÆgÀgÉÆÃVAiÀiÁV aQvÉì
ªÀiÁr¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É D¹Û «ZÁgÀz°
À è £ÀªÀÄUÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ gï, £ÁUÀgÁd, gÀªÀÄågÀªg
À ÀÄ
ºÉÆr¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÁå PÀª
æ ÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä°è
PÉýPÉƼÀÄvî ÃÉÛ £É."
N¢ PÉýzÉ ¸Àj¬ÄzÉ.
¸À»/-
15. On the basis of the complaint on 23.08.2021,
Kyatasandra police have registered the case in Crime
No.194/2021 against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the commission
of offence under Sections 323, 326 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC and
submitted the charge sheet before the Court as per Ex.P15 on
23.08.2021 at 8.30 p.m. At the time of taking treatment by
PW.1 in Shri Siddaganga Hospital, Tumakuru, the police have
recorded the statement of injured Srinivasagowda. The
Investigating Officer has produced the Accident register-cum-
wound certificate issued by Shri Siddaganga Hospital and
- 13 -
Research Centre, Tumakuru, marked as Ex.P8, which reveals
that on 23.08.2021 the injured Srinivasagowda aged about 50
years admitted to the hospital in IP.No.21080307 with the
history of assault and the Doctor has found the following
injuries:
i. Open Grade 2 proximal Phalynx fracture Left
2nd Toe (Grievous injury)
ii. Open Grade 2 Distal Third Tibia Unicortical
Fracture (Grievous injury)
iii. Lacerated wound over forehead (Grievous
injury)
16. Findings of the physical examination are that;
lacerated wounds over anterior-lateral aspect of leg and over
the plantar aspect of the 2nd toe.
17. Ex.P7 is the intimation to the police about the
accident and injuries in which it is stated that Srinivasagowda
S/o Late Venkataswamappa came with the history of assault
near Chowdaiahnapalya, Kesaramadu Road, Tumakuru at
around 3.30 p.m. on 23.08.2021, assault by relatives, hit by
sharp instrument and wooden stick. Ex.P9 is the wound
certificate of Mrs. Shruthi C.S., who examined before the Court
as PW.13, has stated that on 23.08.2021 she admitted to the
hospital in OPD with the history of assault near
Chowdaiahnapalya, Kesaramadu Road, Tumakuru at around
- 14 -
3.30 p.m. on 23.08.2021, assaulted by relatives, hit by sharp
instrument and wooden stick.
18. Ex.P10 is the Accident Register-cum-wound
certificate, which reveals that Mrs. Shruthi C.S., has sustained
following injuries:
(i) ® Face: An abrasion of sixe 1 x 2 cms (+) over
temporal area.
(ii) ® Forearm: Multiple abrasions @ over forearm
and head
(iii) ® Foot: An abrasion (+) over medial aspect of
foot
19. Ex.P11 is the Medico-legal case Register extract
issued by Shri Siddaganga Hospital and Research Centre,
Tumakuru, pursuant to Srinivasgowda, wherein also the history
of assault shown as by relatives hit by sharp instrument,
wooden stick at around 3.30 p.m. on 23.08.2021.
20. Ex.P12 is the Medico-legal case Register extract
pertaining to Mrs. Shruthi C.S., also reveals that she admitted
to the hospital with the history of assault at around 3.30 p.m.
at 23.08.2021 at Chowdaiahnapalya, Kesaramadu Road,
Tumakuru.
21. PW.1-Srinivasagowda has deposed in his evidence
that at about one and half years back at 3.30 p.m., he came
- 15 -
from Mysuru along with CWs.2 and 4 near the house of C.W.2
and the said house was entrusted to accused by CW.2 and
CWs.2 & 4 were cleaning the vacant land situated near the
house by bringing JCB and thereafter came to the house of
CW.2. Further he deposed that they were residing in the said
house since 3 years and at that time, CW.2 asked the accused
to vacate the house and accused told that the said house
belongs to them and they do not want to leave the house and
he advised the accused by questioning the accused as to why
they are not giving up the house as it belongs to CW.2. At that
time, accused No.1 came out of the house holding his hand
behind and he found the machete in the right hand of the
accused No.1, he got frightened and ran away from the spot
and fell down, accused No.1 came from his back and assaulted
on his left shank with machete and caused injuries and he has
shown the wound certificate before the Court. He further
deposed that accused No.2 assaulted him with club and he
became unconscious and he got admitted to the Tumakuru
Hospital and police came and recorded his statement as per
Ex.P1. He further deposed that accused No.3 has pushed CW.2
and kicked on her. This witness, PW.1 has partly treated as
hostile witness and was cross-examined at length.
- 16 -
22. CW.2-Mrs.Shruthi C.S., the injured witness was
examined as PW.13. She has also deposed that she owns land
measuring 22.08 guntas in Sy.No.11/4 at Chowdaiahnapalya,
Kesaramadu, Kyathasandra Road, Tumakuru, she had
constructed RCC house and she owns shed, vacant land and old
house. She further deposed that her father died in the accident
in the year 2009 and her mother died in the year 2017 due to
diabetes and she married in the year 2018 and she had been to
America in December 2018 with her husband and her brother
Manjunatha is in the house of C.W.1 Srinivasagowda and she is
looking after her brother along with her uncle and aunt and her
uncle and aunt were residing with her at Chowdaiahnapalya
and accused being the children of her uncle, leased out the first
floor of RCC house & after the expiry of term, the accused told
that they would evict the tenants & she came back from
America in the April 2019 and asked the accused to hand over
the house which was leased out and accused told that they
would get vacated the leased house & the house would have
been vacated on 20.08.2021. So, she along with her husband
Revanna went to ask the accused, at that time, the accused
told that would not vacate the house. Hence, she went to the
police station and lodged a complaint, however, the police did
not register the complaint and she returned to Mysuru.
- 17 -
Further, she stated that on 23.08.2021, she asked
Srinivasagowda to come to Chowdaiahnapalya and
Srinivasagowda told that she should not go there alone and he
would come along with her and on 23.08.2021, at 10.00 a.m.,
they came to Chowdaiahnapalya and asked the accused to
vacate the house. However, the accused locked the doors of all
the rooms of the house and allowed her to sit in the room in
the ground floor and there was altercation between them. At
that time, they were cleaning the shed with the help of JCB and
when she, her husband and uncle asked the accused to vacate
the house, the accused No.1 told them to register the house in
their name, otherwise he would not spare them and accused
No.1 went inside the house and brought machete. On seeing
the machete, her uncle ran away, accused No.2 brought club
and all of a sudden, her uncle fell down and accused No.1
assaulted on the left shank of her uncle with machete and
accused No.2 assaulted her uncle on his head with club and by
screaming she ran away and accused No.3 Ramya came and
pushed her on to the ground and scratched her body. On
seeing Revanna and her husband, the accused went away by
holding machete and club. She further stated that her uncle has
sustained injuries and her husband brought her and her uncle
to Siddhaganga Hospital, Tumakuru for treatment. Further,
- 18 -
she has deposed as to the spot mahazar conducted by the
police and also seizure of blood stained mud and sample mud.
23. CW.3 Reavana @ Ravi was examined as PW2. He
has deposed in his evidence that about 5 years back there was
a registered marriage between CW.2 and CW.4 and after the
marriage CW.2 was residing at Mysore and now she is residing
at America. CW.2 has constructed a house, the accused were
residing in the said house and CW.2 asked the accused to
reside in the said house and later CW.2 and CW.4 have decided
to reside in the said house and on 23.08.2021. She had been to
the said place along with CW.2 and CW.4 and CW.1 also came
there and CW2 asked the accused to vacate the house. Accused
told that they would not leave the house and asked CW.2 to
register the said house in their name. CW.2 did not agree and
thereafter accused No.1 made CW.1 to fall on the road and
assaulted with machete on his left leg and head. Accused No. 2
assaulted with club on his head, chest and leg and caused
bleeding injuries. He has also stated that accused No.3
scratched the body of CW1 after pushing her on the ground. He
further deposed that he had admitted CW.1 and CW.2 to Sri
Siddhaganga Hospital for treatment. The police came to the
spot and conducted mahazar and collected blood-stained mud
- 19 -
and sample mud. He has also deposed as to panchanama at
Ex.P2.
24. PW.14-Ganesh K.N., has also deposed in his
evidence as to the alleged incident and also act of the accused.
25. PW.6-Srinivasa, who cited as eye-witness, has
deposed in his evidence as to the assault made by the accused
on Srinivasagowda with machete and he has further deposed
that accused No.2 gave blow to CW.1 with club on his head and
accused No.3 scratched the face and hands of CW.2.
26. PW.3-N.Prabhakar, the Lab technician has deposed
as to the mahazar conducted by the police as per Ex.P2.
27. PW.4- K.Ashwatha Reddy, has deposed as to the
mahazar conducted by the Police as per Ex.P3.
28. PW.5-Anil Kumar R., has deposed with regard to
the mahazar conducted by the Police as per Ex.P4 and he has
not fully supported the case of the prosecution.
29. PW.6-Srinivasa, has deposed in his evidence that
accused No.1 chased Srinivasagowda and gave blow to him
with machete on his left leg and left feet. Accused No.2 gave
blow to CW.1 on his head and accused No.3 has scratched.
- 20 -
30. PW.7-Divakara has deposed as to the mahazar
conducted by the police as per Ex.P4.
31. PW.8-Mohamad Shafiulla, the Head Constable has
deposed as to the arrest of accused No.1 and produced before
the PSI and gave report as per Ex.P5. He has also deposed as
to the mahazar conducted by the police as per Ex.P4.
32. PW.9-Yashish Kumar C., has deposed in his
evidence as to the mahazar conducted by the police as per
Ex.P6.
33. PW.10-Harish, the lorry owner, has deposed in his
evidence as to the mahazar conducted by the police as per
Ex.P6 and he has not fully supported to the case of the
prosecution.
34. PW.11-Dr.Rahul, Orthopedic surgeon, Sreedevi
Institute of Medical Sciences has deposed his evidence as to the
examination of the injured Srinivasagowda and Mrs. Shruthi
C.S., and has also deposed with regard to the issuance of
wound certificates at Exs.P8 and 10.
35. PWs.12 and 16- R.S.Siddappa the PSI and
Omprakash Gowda, the Circle Inspector of Police, have deposed
with regard to their respective investigation.
- 21 -
36. PW.14 Ganesh K.N., Civil Engineer has deposed in
his evidence that Srinivasagowda is his uncle, CW.2 is his wife,
CW.3 is his mother. The accused are cousins of CW.2. He
married CW.2 in the year 2018 and thereafter they went to
America. He left his wife's brother in the house of
Srinivasagowda. His wife Shruthi C.S., is having house in
Chowdaiahnapalya. When they were proceeding to America,
they have given the ground floor of the house to the accused to
look after the same and left the first floor for Manjunath, the
younger brother of his wife. The accused have assured them
that they will vacate the house after their return from America.
In the month of April 2019, when he and Shruthi came from
America, they went and asked the accused to vacate the house
as the lease period of the house would complete on
28.02.2021. Then the accused told that they will not vacate the
house. Hence, they lodged a complaint to the Kyatsandra Police
and went to Mysore. After two days, they returned to
Chowdaiahnapalya and there was altercation between the
accused and himself and also CW.1-Srinivasagowda, who came
by that time. The accused refused to hand over the possession
of the house and they were cleaning the shed through JCB.
Then, accused No.1 Raja came by holding machete by chasing
his uncle. Then he fell. Thereafter, accused No.1 gave blow to
- 22 -
him on his left leg and accused No.2 gave blow to him with
club. When, Revanna and himself tried to rescue them, accused
Ramya scratched his wife Shruthi with her nails, then the
accused went away. He, his wife and his uncle went to the
Siddaganga Hospital, Tumkur for treatment. At the time of
taking treatment, the police came and recorded the statement
of CW.1. His wife also took treatment in the hospital. On the
next day, he handed over the clothes of his uncle to the police.
The police have seized the same under Ex.P3 and he identified
the blood stained shirts and clothes as MOs.5 and 6. He also
identified the machete and club used for the commission of
offences, MOs1 and 4. At the time of seizure of clothes, the
police took his signature on chit and pasted on clothes.
37. On careful examination of the entire evidence, it is
crystal clear that there is a dispute between the accused and
CWs.1 to 3 with regard to the vacating of disputed house. PW1
suffered Proximal Phalynx fracture left 2nd toe due to fall on the
ground and not due to the assault by accused. This fact is
evident by the very complainant and also the evidence of
prosecution witnesses. In the complaint at Ex.P1, it is stated
that " ಾನು ಸ ಲ ದೂರ ಓ ೋ ದು ೋ ೆ."
- 23 -
38. PW.1 in his cross-examination by the Public
Prosecutor, has admitted that at the time of incident, he fell
down. PW.13-Shruthi, who is also alleged injured eye-witness
in her examination-in-chief itself stated that PW.1 fell down
accidentally at the time of alleged incident which is extracted as
follows:
"ನ ನ ಕ ಾವ ತ ೊಳ"ಲು ೋಗು$%ದ ರು, ಆಕ 'ಕ(ಾ
ದು ಟ*ರು."
39. Ex.P8, the wound certificate reveals that PW.1
sustained injuries to his 2nd toe and distal third tibia unicortial.
From the nature of the above injuries, one can assume that the
said injuries would likely be caused due to fall. If, at all the
injuries are caused by accused No.1, the injuries would have
more severe in nature.
40. With regard to the alleged assault made by the
accused No.2 is concerned, in the complaint it is stated that
accused No.2 assaulted him with the club on his head with
force. PW.1 has also deposed the same in his evidence. PW,13-
has also deposed the same in his evidence. However in the
medical certificate and MLC register, the medical officer has not
recorded the name of the accused and alleged weapons used
- 24 -
for the commission of offences. The injured Shruthi did not
sustain any injuries on her head.
41. The allegations made in Ex.P1-complaint and
evidence of PWs.1, 2, 13 and 14 clearly goes to show that they
are aggressors who gone near the house in question, which is
in dispute between the accused and the prosecution witnesses
to get the possession of the house without following due
process of law. In Ex.P1-complaint itself, the complainant
himself stated that he brought JCB through PW.14 and got
demolished the cow shed of the accused persons. PW.1 in his
cross-examination has also admitted as under:
"ಆ+ೋ ತ+ೇ ಆ ಮ ೆಯನು. ಕ/* ದು "
"ನನ0ೆ $1 ದ ಾರಣ ಅವರನು. ಾ4ಾ ಸ5ೆಂದು ಾ ೇ ಸ ಂತ ನಮ'
ಊ89ಂದ :ೌಡಯ=ನ >ಾಳ= ೆ ಬಂ@ದು . ಾನು ಬಂ ಾಗ ಸು ಾರು
ಮAಾ=ಹ. 3:30."
42. PW.2 in his evidence has also clearly stated as
follows:
"ಅದರCD ಆ+ೋ ತರು ದನ ಕಟು*$%ದರ
ು. ಸದ8 EೆF ನನ0ೆ ಮತು% :ಾ Eಾ 2
ರವ80ೆ Eೇ8ದು . ಅದನು. GಾC ಾ ಎಂದ+ೆ ಅವರು ಾಡCಲD. ಆದ 8ಂದ
ಗ5ಾIೆJಾದ @ನ ಗ5ಾIೆಗೂ Kದಲು ಾವL ಸದ8 ಷF ನು. Nೆ ತ8
ೆಡO ದ ವL."
43. PW.13 has also stated in his evidence as follows:
- 25 -
"ಆP ಮ ೆಯನು. ಆ+ೋ ತರು ತಂ ೆ ಕ/* ದರು ಎಂದ+ೆ ಇಬRರು Eೇ8
ಕ/* ೆ ೕ(ೆ ಎಂದು EಾS ೇಳT4ಾ%+ೆ."
44. PW.2 has further admitted that CW2 and himself
have filed a suit for partition and possession against the
accused which is pending before the Tumkur Court.
45. On perusal of the aforesaid admission made by the
prosecution witnesses, the court can observe that if really the
accused No.1 had an intention to assault PW.1 with MO1-
machete, the injured would have sustained grievous hurt on
the vital part of the body. He has not sustained any injuries,
except on the 2nd toe and admittedly PW.1 had fallen on the
ground, then only he sustained the injuries to his 2nd toe.
Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 and other interested witnesses
and the inconsistent evidence of medical evidence will create a
reasonable doubt as to the injuries sustained by PW.1. When
PW.1 sustained injury on his 2nd toe, taking undue advantage
of the injuries, he had filed the complaint against the accused
so as to implicate the case against them as there is an enmity
between the complainant and the accused.
46. With regard to the injuries caused to Mrs. Shruthi
C.S., is concerned, the medical officer has not stated anything
in the wound certificate as to the age of injuries and name of
- 26 -
accused who has scratched Mrs. Shruthi C.S. Accordingly, the
evidence of Mrs. Shruthi C.S., is not supported with medical
evidence.
47. It is relevant to mention here that PW.1 has
deposed in his examination-in-chief that after 2 days from the
date of admission to Tumkur Hospital, for further treatment, he
was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Mysore wherein he has taken
treatment as an inpatient for one month in the said hospital.
Thereafter, he used to visit the hospital everyday for taking
treatment. In this regard, the Investigating Officer has not
produced any document. The conduct of this evidence, the
exaggeration, and the improved evidence of PW.1, reveal that
his evidence is not believable as the same is not corroborated
with any medical evidence. Even, the Investigating Officer has
not deposed anything with regard to the admission of PW.1 in
the Apollo Hospital, Mysore.
48. Viewed from any angle, the evidence of injured
witnesses and other interested witnesses do not appear to be
natural and their evidence is not consistent with each other and
also not supported with medical evidence. Since there is an
enmity between the accused and complainant with regard to
vacating of disputed house, it is quite natural to depose against
- 27 -
the accused exaggerating with an intention to harass the
accused. Under the given set of circumstances, it is not safe to
believe the evidence of PWs.1, 13 and other interested
witnesses whose evidence is not substantiated and
corroborated by any independent witness. If, really PW.1 has
sustained injuries with machete and club, he would have
disclosed the same before the Medical Officer. However, he has
not disclosed the name of weapons used for the commission of
offence and also name of accused. Though the Medical Officer
has mentioned in the wound certificate that the injury is caused
by a hit with sharp instrument and wooden stick, the same is
not in not consistent with MOs.1 and 4 produced by the
prosecution.
49. The wound certificate of PW.1-Srinivasagowda,
reveals that the injuries 1 to 3 are grievous in nature and there
is a fracture of left 2nd toe Proximal phalynx fracture. To
substantiate the same, the Investigating Officer has not
produced the radiology report with regard to the fracture of left
2nd toe and even the X-ray is also not produced.
50. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Sheenappa Gowda (supra), has observed that the
prosecution has failed to prove the allegation of grievous injury
- 28 -
sustained by PW.4 in view of non-production of X-ray for
confirmation of fracture opined by the doctor in clinical medical
examination. On this ground, it is not possible to hold that
accused said to have committed offence.
51. On careful examination of the entire evidence
independently, I do not find any cogent, convincing,
acceptable, credible and believable trustworthy evidence to
convict the accused for the commission of offence under
Sections 323 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC. By giving benefit of
doubt, it is held that the accused are entitled for acquittal.
Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
Regarding Point No.2:
52. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(a) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
(b) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence
dated 25.09.2024 passed in S.C.No.97/2022 by
the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Tumakuru, is hereby set aside.
(c) The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted
of the offence under Sections 323, 326 r/w 34 of
Indian Penal Code;
- 29 -
(d) The bail bonds of appellants/accused 1 to 3 shall
stand cancelled;
(e) The trial Court is directed to refund the fine
amount, if any in deposit, to the
appellants/accused 1 to 3;
Registry is directed to send the trial Court records along
with the copy of this Judgment to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
msr
