Karnataka High Court
Rajkumar And Ors vs The State on 1 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200331 OF 2023
(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. RAJKUMAR
S/O DEVENDRA SAJJAN
AGE: 35 YEARS
OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE
2. MITHUN S/O DEVENDER SAJJAN
AGE: 33 YEARS
OCCUPATION LABOUR
3. NAVEEN S/O DEENDER SAJJAN
AGE: 27 YEARS
OCCUPATION STUDENT
ALL ARE R/O VILLAGE BORAMPALLI,
Digitally signed by TQ: CHITGUPPA, DIST: BIDAR.
RAMESH ...APPELLANTS
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. AVINASH A. UPLOANKAR., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
THE STATE
THROUGH CHITTAGUPPA POLICE STATION,
DISTRICT BIDAR,
NOW REPRESETED BY
ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C (OLD)
U/SEC. 415 BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS IN S.C.NO.195/2016 AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BIDAR,
SITTING AT BASAVAKALYAN FOR CONVICTING THE
TH
APPELLANTS BY ITS JUDGMENT DATED 09 NOVEMBER 2023
AND SENTENCING THEM ON 10TH NOVEMBER 2023.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellants-accused 2, 3 and 4 have preferred
this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order
on sentence passed by the II-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,
Bidar, sitting at Basavakalyan, in S.C.No.195/2016 dated
09.11.2023.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are
that, CPI of Chitaguppa laid charge-sheet against the
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324,
506 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is alleged by
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
the prosecution that, on 19.01.2026 at about 7:30 hours
near community hall, at Borampalli village on the public
road, accused 1 to 4 formed an unlawful assembly by
holding weapons with a common object to commit the
offence, picked up quarrel with CW.1 abused him in filthy
language. Accused No.3 assaulted CW.1 with stick on his
head and caused grievous bleeding injuries, accused No.4
assaulted CW.10 with stick on his back head, forehead and
caused grievous bleeding injuries, accused 1 and 3 with an
intention to kill the deceased-Vithal s/o Sharnappa
Janwadkar, accused No.3 assaulted with axe-handle on his
back head and accused No.1 assaulted with pestle on his
forehead and caused grievous bleeding injuries, resulting
in the said Vithal succumbed to the injuries in the hospital
on 24.01.2016 at about 8:30 a.m. Thereby, the accused
have committed the offence punishable under Sections
504, 324, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. During investigation, the police have arrested
the accused on 03.02.2016 and were released on bail.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed
against accused and case was registered in
C.C.No.297/2016. Thereafter, case was committed to the
Court of Sessions which was registered as
S.C.No.195/2016. Accused appeared before the Trial
Court. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court has
framed the charges for the offences under Sections 504,
324, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, the same was read
over and explained to accused. Accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. During pendency of case,
accused No.1 reported dead.
5. To prove the case of the prosecution, in all, 17
witnesses have been examined as PWs1 to 17, got marked
documents as Exs.P1 to P20 and three materials objects
are marked as MOs.1 to 3. On closure of prosecution side
evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313
Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused totally denied the
evidence appearing against them. Accused No.3 examined
himself as DW.1 and one witness as DW.2.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
6. Having heard arguments on both sides, the trial
Court has convicted the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 504, 324, 304(ii) read with
Section 34 of IPC and passed the sentence. Being
aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on
sentence passed by the Trial Court, the appellants have
preferred this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants would
submit that the impugned judgment of conviction and
order on sentence passed by the Trial Court is contrary to
law, facts and evidence on record. The reasons assigned
by the Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment
and order on sentence are erroneous and as such, the
Trial Court has slipped into an error and passed the
impugned judgment which has resulted in substantial
miscarriage of justice to the case of appellants. In spite of
there being number of omissions and contradictions, the
trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence on
record. The trial Court has erred in appreciating the
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
evidence of PW.2. PW.5 who is the brother of the
deceased and eye-witness has not supported the
prosecution case. PWs.7 and 8, who are eye-witnesses
have also not supported the prosecution case. PWs.1, 6,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13 are interested witnesses and related to
the deceased, therefore, their evidence cannot be believed
and are not trustworthy, unless for want of corroboration
from independent eyewitnesses. The Trial Court has lost
sight in appreciating the evidence of PWs.6, 9, 11 and 12
who are family members, as the version of assault by
appellants vary from each other. The genesis of the case
of the prosecution suffers, as the place of incident is
changed and for the said reason all the aforesaid
witnesses are treated partly hostile. That it was one Asha
who was eve-teased and assaulted with knife by the
complainant party for which counter case is registered in
Crime No.6/2016, which was tried as SC No.101/2018 and
the trial Judge has erred in deciding who are aggressors.
In the absence of corroboration of any independent
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
witnesses and relying only on the evidence of eye-
witnesses of family members, the judgment of Trial Court
is bad in law. Suppressing the counter case and
convicting the accused without deciding who are
aggressors and for non-explanation of injuries of appellant
No.1 and DW.2, the entire prosecution case should fail.
8. Further it is submitted that, the evidence of
PWs.6, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are not consistent to each other
as to the injuries caused to the deceased and also alleged
weapons used for the commission of offence.
9. All material prosecution witnesses have
deposed that the incident took place in the courtyard of
the house of the PW.6. In this regard, the learned Public
Prosecutor has treated the material witnesses as partly
hostile and cross examined. Even in the cross-examination
by learned Public Prosecutor, PW.6 has categorically
denied that the incident has not taken place in the
community hall but in the courtyard.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
10. Further, he would submit that, as per FIR, there
were seven accused. In further statement, the
Investigating Officer has inserted another nine accused
and at the time of filing charge-sheet, the Investigating
Officer has filed the charge-sheet only against appellants-
accused Nos.1 to 4. It shows that, without proper
investigation, the Investigating Officer has mechanically
submitted the charge-sheet according to his whims and
fancies. After the alleged incident, the injured was shifted
to Government Hospital, Humnabad, thereafter, he shifted
to Government Hospital, Bidar, then shifted to
Basaveshwar Hospital, Gulbarga and finally injured died at
Government Hospital, Gulbarga. The Investigating Officer
has not produced any document to show that injured was
admitted to first at Government Hospital, Humnabad,
thereafter, he shifted to Government Hospital, Bidar, then
to Basaveshwar Hospital, Gulbarga and finally injured died
at Government Hospital, Gulbarga. The Investigating
Officer has not explained anything as to non-production of
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
these material documents before the Court. The alleged
incident took place on 19.01.2016. The deceased died on
24.01.2016 at 8:00 a.m. The Investigating Officer has not
recorded the statement of the injured during his lifetime
i.e. between 19.01.2016 and 24.01.2016. The
Investigating Officer has not produced the case sheet
maintained by the respective Hospitals as to the health
condition of the deceased.
11. The Medical Officer, who has conducted post
mortem examination of the deceased has not been
examined by the prosecution. The post mortem report
marked through Investigating Officer. Mere marking of
the document does not amount to proof. The cause of
death of the deceased has not been proved by the
prosecution.
12. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the
evidence on record in a proper perspective, and on all
these grounds, learned counsel for appellants seek to
allow this appeal.
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
13. As against this, Sri. Jamadar Shahabuddin, the
learned HCGP, would submit that the trial Court has
properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance
with law and facts, and that there are no grounds to
interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Hence, he
seeks dismissal of the appeal.
14. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the
following points would arise for consideration:
i. Whether the trial Court was justified in
convicting the accused for the commission of
offences under Sections 504, 324, 504(2)
read with Section 34 of the IPC?
ii. What order?
15. My answer to the above points is as follows:
Point No.1: in the negative;
Point No2.: as per final order.
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023HC-KAR
Regarding Point No.1:
16. I have examined the material placed before this
Court. The genesis of the case arises from the filing of the
complaint as per Exhibit P7, filed by the complainant,
PW6-Mallesh, on 19.01.2016, in which it is stated as
under:
“£Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ ÉèñÀ vÀAzÉ «oÀ® d£ÀªÁqÀ ªÀAiÀÄ 21 ªÀµÀð eÁw|| ºÉÆ°AiÀiÁ
GzÉÆåÃUÀ: PÀÆ° PÉ®¸À ¸Á|| ¨ÉÆgÀA¥À½î vÁ|| ºÀĪÀÄ£Á¨ÁzÀ f|| ©ÃzÀgÀ
ªÉƨÉÊ ï £ÀA:9632278928 ºÉý §gɬĹzÀ ºÉýPÉ.
*****
£Á£ÀÄ F ªÉÄÃ É £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀªÀ¤zÀÄÝ PÀÆ°PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ
G¥Àfë¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÉ £ÁªÀÅ 1) ±ÀgÀt¥Áà 2) gÁdPÀĪÀiÁgÀ
3) £Á£ÀÄ 4) gÀªÉÄñÀ CAvÀ £Á®ÄÌ d£À UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̽zÀÄÝ £ÀªÀÄä°è ±ÀgÀt¥Áà
Áj ZÁ®PÀ¤ÃgÀÄvÁÛ£É, £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁdPÀĪÀiÁgÀ PÀÆ°PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛêÉ.
gÀªÉÄñÀ EªÀ£ÀÄß MPÀÌ®ÄvÀ£À PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ£É. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 3 ªÀµÀðzÀ »A¢¤AzÀ
£À£Àß vÀªÀÄä gÀªÉÄñÀ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä NuÉAiÀÄ DgÀÄw vÀAzÉ zÉëAzÀæ¥Áà ¸ÀdÓ£À
E§âgÀÄ M§âjUÉƧâgÀÄ ¦æÃw ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F «µÀAiÀÄzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ºÁUÀÆ
zÉëAzÀæ vÀAzÉ £ÀgÀ¸À¥Áà, ªÀÄzsÀå ªÉʪÀÄ£À¸ÀÄì ¨ÉüÉzÀÄ DUÁUÀ ¨Á¬Ä ªÀiÁw£À
dUÀ¼ÀªÁUÀÄvÁÛ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¦æÃw¸ÀĪÀgÀÄ
©nÖgÀĪÀÅ¢ Áè, E§âgÀÄ ªÉƨÉÊ ï ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ DgÀÄw EªÀ¼ÀÄ
PÀ®§ÄVðAiÀÄ°è «zsÁå¨sÁå¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ¼É.
»ÃVgÀĪÁUÀ EAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 19.01.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ®
CAzÁdÄ 7:30 PM UÀAmÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ «oÀ®, vÁ¬Ä
±ÀgÀtªÀÄä, CuÁÚ ±ÀgÀt¥Áà, vÀªÀÄä gÀªÉÄñÀ, CwÛUÉ gÀAfvÁ UÀAqÀ ±ÀgÀt¥Áà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
£ÀªÀÄä NuÉAiÀÄ §¸ÀªÀgÁd ¸ÁUÀgÀ J ÁègÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝUÀ £ÀªÀÄä NuÉAiÀÄ
gÁdPÀĪÀiÁgÀ vÀAzÉ zÉëAzÀæ ¸ÀdÓ£À, «ÄxÀÄ£À vÀAzÉ zÉëAzÀæ, £À«Ã£À vÀAzÉ
zÉëAzÀæ, DgÀÄw vÀAzÉ zÉëAzÀæ, zÉëAzÀæ vÀAzÉ £ÀgÀ¸À¥Áà ¸ÀdÓ£À, ¸ÀIJîªÀiÁä
UÀAqÀ zÉëAzÀæ, ºÁUÀÆ ±ÉñÀÄ vÀAzÉ zÉëAzÀæ ¸ÀdÓ£À gÀªÀgÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ PÀÆl
gÀa¹PÉÆAqÀÄ KPÉÆzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ vÀªÀÄä vÀªÀÄä PÉÊUÀ¼À°è §rUÉ ºÁUÀÆ SÁgÀzÀ ¥ÀÄr
»rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ‘K ¨ÉƸÀr ªÀÄPÀ̼À £ÁªÀÅ JµÀÄÖ ¸À® ºÉýzÀgÀÄ
£ÀªÀÄä ºÀÄqÀÄVUÉ ªÉƨÉÊ ï ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ©qÀÄwÛ Áè DgÀÄw
CªÀ¼À ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀzÀÄ ºÉÃUÉ EAzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄäUÉ ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®è §¤ß ºÉÆgÀUÉ
CAvÀ CªÁåZÀÒ ±À§ÑUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ PÀgÉzÁUÀ £ÁªÉ®ègÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ
ªÀÄÄAzÉ gÉÆr£À ªÉÄÃ É §AzÁUÀ CªÀgÀ°è gÁdPÀĪÀiÁgÀ CªÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß PÉÊAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
§rUɬÄAzÀ £À£Àß £ÀqÀÄ vÀ ÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ É ºÁUÀÆ ºÀuÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ É ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ
gÀPÀÛUÁAiÀÄ ¥Àr¹zÀ£ÀÄ. DUÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ «oÀ® CªÀ£ÀÄ dUÀ¼À ©r¸À®Ä §AzÁUÀ
zÉëAzÀæ vÀAzÉ £ÀgÀ¸À¥Áà ºÁUÀÆ «ÄxÀÄ£À vÀAzÉ zÉëAzÀæ E§âgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉUÉ
PÉÆ É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ vÀªÀÄä vÀªÀÄä PÉÊAiÀÄ°è£À §rUɬÄAzÀ vÀ ÉAiÀÄ JqÀ
ºÀuÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀ ÉAiÀÄ »A¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ¨sÁj gÀPÀÛ ºÁUÀÆ
UÀÄ¥ÀÛUÁAiÀÄ ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DUÁ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ ¨ÉúÉƸÀ (¥ÀæeÁÕ) vÀ¦àgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
£ÀªÀÄä CuÁÚ ±ÀgÀt¥Áà CªÀ¤ÃUÉ £À«Ã£À vÀAzÉ zÉëAzÀæ ºÁUÀÆ «ÄxÀÄ£À vÀAzÉ
zÉëAzÀæ E§âgÀÄ §rUÉUÀ½AzÀ vÀ ÉAiÀÄ »A¨sÁUÀPÉÌ, ºÀuÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ É ¨sÁj gÀPÀÛ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀÄ¥ÀÛUÁAiÀÄ ¥Àr¹ PÉÆ É ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DgÀÄw vÀAzÉ
zÉëAzÀæ¥Áà CªÀ¼À vÀ£Àß PÉÊAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ SÁgÀzÀ ¥ÀÆr £À£Àß PÀtÂÚ£À°è ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛ¼É.
¸ÀIJîªÀÄä UÀAqÀ zÉëAzÀæ ±ÉñÀÄ vÀAzÉ zÉëAzÀæ, E§âgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä CuÁÚ ±ÀgÀt¥Áà
CªÀ¤ÃUÉ »rzÀÄ gÀhÄAgÀhÄ ªÀÄÄ¶× ªÀiÁr EªÀjUÉ ©qÀ ¨ÉÃr ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ºÁQ
CAvÀ fêÀzÀ ¨ÉÃzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£ÀUÉ «ÄxÀÄ£À CªÀ£ÀÄ F ªÉÆzÀ®Ä
ºÉÆqÉzÀ §rUɬÄAzÀ £À£Àß §® ¨É¤ßUÉ ºÁUÀÆ JqÀ vÉÆqÉAiÀÄ »A¨sÁUÀzÀ°è
ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ UÀÄ¥ÀÛUÁAiÀÄ ¥Àr¹zÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä NuÉAiÀÄ PÀ«Än ºÁ°£À
¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è gÉÆr£À ªÉÄÃ É WÀl£É dgÀÄVzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DUÁ ¸ÀzÀj dUÀ¼À£ÉÆr
£ÀªÀÄä NuÉAiÀÄ §¸ÀªÀgÁd vÀAzÉ ¨Á¼À¥Áà, ¸ÁUÀgÀ, PÁ²£ÁxÀ vÀAzÉ ¨Á¼À¥Áà
¸ÁUÀgÀ, £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä ±ÀgÀtªÀiÁä, £ÀªÀÄä vÀªÀÄä gÀªÉÄñÀ ºÁUÀÆ CuÉÚ¥Áà vÀAzÉ
±ÀgÀt¥Áà, d£ÀªÁqÀ, J®ègÀÄ ©Ã¢ PÀA§zÀ ÉÊn£À ¨É¼ÀQ£À°è dUÀ¼À ¥ÀævÀåPÀëªÁV
£ÉÆr ©r¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
EAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 19.01.2016 gÀAzÀÄ 07: 30 PM UÀAmÉUÉ £ÀªÀÄÆägÀ
PÀ«ÄÃn ºÁ® ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è gÀÆr£À ªÉÄÃ É £ÀªÀÄUÉ PÉÆ É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ
DPÀæªÀÄ PÀÆl gÀa¹PÉÆAqÀÄ KPÉÆzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÉ®ègÀÄ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ¨sÁj
gÀPÀÛUÁAiÀÄ, UÀÄ¥ÀÛUÁAiÀÄ ¥Àr¹ SÁgÀzÀ ¥ÀÄr PÀuÉÚ£À°è ºÁQ fêÀzÀ ¨ÉÃzÀjPÉ
ºÁQzÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊPÉƼÀî®Ä «£ÀAw.”
17. On the basis of the complaint, the Chittaguppa
Police registered case in Crime No.195/2016 against the
accused for the commission of offences under Sections
324, 143, 147, 148, 504, 506, 307, and 149 of the IPC,
1860, and submitted the FIR to the Court as per Exhibit
P19.
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
18. After investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted the charge sheet against accused 1 to 4. In the
charge sheet, it is stated that the offence was not proved
against accused Nos. 5 to 13.
19. The complainant-Mallesh, who is examined as
PW6, has deposed in his evidence that the deceased-Vithal
is his father, CW10-Sharanappa is his elder brother,
CW11-Sharanamma is his mother, CW12-Ramesh is his
younger brother, and CW6-Annappa, CW7-Basavraj, and
CW8-Kashinath are residents of his village. He knows
accused Nos. 1 to 4, who are also residents of his village.
He knows Aarti, the daughter of accused No.1.
20. He further deposed that on 19.12.2016 at 7:30
p.m., he was at home with his father, mother, and sister-
in-law. At that time, the accused came to his house,
picked a quarrel, abused him in filthy language, and gave
life threat. Thereafter, accused No.2-Rajkumar, assaulted
him with a stick on the middle of his head and on his
entire body. Further, when his brother Sharanappa tried
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
to pacify the quarrel, accused No.4 assaulted his brother
with the handle of the axe on the forehead, causing
bleeding injuries. When his father intervened and tried to
pacify them, accused No.3 assaulted his father with a
pestle. Thereafter, his father was shifted to Humnabad
Government Hospital. At about 8:00 p.m., the P.S.I. of
Chittaguppa came to the hospital and recorded his
statement. Subsequently, his father was shifted to Bidar
Hospital for higher treatment, and on 20.01.2016, he was
shifted to Basaveshwar Hospital, Kalaburagi, for further
treatment, and later to the Government Hospital,
Kalaburagi. However, on 24.01.2016 at 8:00 a.m., his
father died. Thereafter, he informed the Chittaguppa Police
about his father’s death. He can identify MO.1-pestle. This
witness was treated as a partly hostile witness and was
cross-examined.
21. Another material witness PW9, has deposed in
her evidence that about six years ago, at around 8:00
p.m., when she was at home with her family members,
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
the accused persons, holding sticks, axe, and chilly
powder; illegally trespassed into her house, splashed chilly
powder into their eyes, and assaulted her father-in-law,
her husband (CW10), and CW1. Further, accused No.4,
Naveen, assaulted her deceased father-in-law with a sickle
on his head. Accused No.3 assaulted CW10 with an axe on
the forehead. Accused No.1 assaulted the deceased Vithal,
her father-in-law, with an axe on the head, and also
assaulted CW1 with a stick on his head. The women who
came with the accused splashed chilly powder into their
eyes. The accused quarrelled with this witness without any
reason. The incident occurred in the light. Thereafter,
CW1, CW10, and the deceased father-in-law were shifted
to the hospital, but her father-in-law died a week later
during treatment at the hospital. Her father-in-law died
due to the injuries inflicted by the accused. This witness
identified MOs2 to 6. She gave a statement to the police.
This witness was also treated as a partly hostile witness
with the permission of the court and was cross-examined.
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
22. PW10, Sharanappa, son of Vithal, deposed in
his evidence that on 19.10.2016 at about 7:00 p.m., when
he was at home with his brother, father, mother, wife and
children, accused came to his house. Among them, the
male accused held sticks in their hands, and the female
accused held packets of chilly powder. They called this
witness and others to come out by abusing them in filthy
language. When they came out and inquired, the accused
picked a quarrel with them, splashed chilly powder into
their eyes, and gave threat to their lives. Among them,
accused No.1 assaulted this witness on his head and
forehead with a stick. Accused No.3 assaulted his
deceased father with a pestle on the forehead. All the
accused assaulted this witness and his deceased father.
Further, accused No.4 assaulted CW1 with a stick on the
head and also assaulted CW12 with his hands. The
incident occurred during the night in the light. The accused
took them and left them near the Community Hall Road.
Thereafter, this witness and the other injured were shifted
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
to the Government Hospital, Humnabad, and then to Bidar
for higher treatment. Subsequently, his father died on
24.01.2016 in the hospital during treatment. He identified
MOs1 to 6.
23. PW11, Sharanamma, deposed in her evidence
that about six years ago, her husband died. On the day of
the incident, at about 6-7 p.m., when she was at home
with her family members, the accused came to her house,
picked up quarrel, and abused them in filthy language. The
accused splashed chilly powder into the eyes of CW1,
CW9, CW10 and her deceased husband. Further, accused
2 and 3 assaulted CW1 with a stick on his back and on his
leg. Accused No.4 assaulted CW10 with a stick on his
head, legs, hip, and forehead. The accused picked up
quarrel and assaulted them without any reason. CW7 and
CW8 witnessed the incident. Further, the injured were
shifted to Humnabad Government Hospital by ambulance.
Thereafter, her deceased husband Vithal was shifted to
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
Kalaburagi Hospital for higher treatment, but after three
days, he died. She identified MOs3 to 6.
24. PW12-Ramesh has deposed in his evidence that
about six years ago, his father died. He knew Aarti, the
daughter of accused No.1. There was a dispute between
the accused and this witness because this witness used to
love Aarti. About six years ago, in the evening at about
7:00 p.m., when this witness, CW1, CW9 to CW11, and
CW13 were at home, the accused came before his house
and called them outside by abusing them in filthy
language. When they came out, the accused splashed
chilly powder into their eyes. Thereafter, accused 2 and 4
assaulted CW1 with pestle and a stick on the back of his
head, eyebrow, and head. Accused Nos. 2 and 4 also
assaulted CW10 with a stick on his forehead, back head,
thighs, and back. When his father tried to pacify the
quarrel, accused 1 and 3 assaulted him with a stick on his
head and back head, causing injuries. CW7 and CW8
witnessed the incident. Thereafter, CW1, CW10, and his
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
father were shifted to Humnabad Government Hospital by
ambulance. Subsequently, his father was shifted to Bidar
Hospital and then to Kalaburagi Hospital for higher
treatment, but after 3-4 days, he died. He identified MOs1,
and 3 to 6.
25. PW1-Ravi and PW2-Subhash, are said to be the
attesters to the spot panchnama at Exhibit P1. They did
not support the prosecution’s case.
26. PW3-Dhulappa, and PW4-Rajkumar, are said to
be the attesting witnesses to the inquest panchnama,
Exhibit P2. They deposed about the panchnama, but both
witnesses did not fully support the case of prosecution.
27. PWs5, 7, and 8, the alleged independent eye-
witnesses, did not support the prosecution’s case. Even in
the cross-examination conducted by the Public Prosecutor
after treating them as hostile witnesses, they categorically
denied their statements and the further statements
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of
the Cr.PC., which are marked as Exhibits P5 to P12.
28. PW13-Dr. Basavanthrao, has deposed as to
examination of the injured.
29. PW6-Mallesha and PW10-Sharanappa have
deposed regarding the issuance of Wound Certificates,
Exhibits P17 and P18.
30. PW14-Laxmi wife of Shantappa, deposed
regarding the death of her father about six years ago. She
also partially turned hostile.
31. PW15-Mahantesh, PW16-Balakrishna and
PW17-Circle Police Inspector, deposed regarding their
respective investigations.
32. A perusal of the evidence placed before this
Court shows that it is the prosecution’s case that the
alleged incident took place on 19.01.2016 at 7:30 p.m. by
the side of the road near Borampolly Village, within the
jurisdiction of Chittaguppa Police Station.
– 21 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
33. As per the complaint, the alleged incident took
place in front of the house of the complainant, PW6-
Mallesh.
34. Spot panchnama-Exhibit P1, reveals that the
incident took place on the CC road near the Community
Hall in Borampally Village.
35. Since PW6 deposed that the incident took place
near the courtyard of his house, this witness was treated
as partly hostile and was cross-examined by the learned
Public Prosecutor. Even in cross-examination, this witness
categorically denied that the incident took place near the
community hall.
36. PW9-Ranjitha has deposed that the incident
took place in front of the complainant’s house. In this
regard, the prosecution treated her as a partly hostile
witness and cross-examined her. Even in her cross-
examination, she categorically denied that the incident
– 22 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
took place near the Community Hall, located by the side of
the house.
37. PW10-Sharanappa, did not depose as to the
place of the incident.
38. PW11-Sharanamma, has not deposed as to the
place of the crime.
39. The wound certificate also does not reveal the
actual place of the crime. Therefore, it is crystal clear that
in this regard, the prosecution has failed to prove the
place of the crime by adducing cogent, consistent, and
clinching evidence.
40. With regard to the injuries, a careful
examination of the contents of the complaint and the
evidence of material witnesses reveals that there is no
cogent, consistent, and corroborative evidence as to the
use of the alleged weapons said to have been used by the
accused. The wound certificate of the injured does not
reveal the weapons used for the commission of the
– 23 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
offence. The name of the accused is also disclosed in the
wound certificate. The medical officer has not stated
anything regarding the names of the accused or the
weapons used for the commission of the offence.
41. The alleged incident took place on 19.01.2016
at 7:30 p.m. Exhibit P14, the post-mortem report, reveals
that the deceased died on 24.01.2016. The inquest
panchnama was conducted on 24.01.2016. The deceased
victim was alive for five days from the date of the
commission of the offence. However, the Investigating
Officer did not record statement of the injured-Vithal. The
dying declaration of the deceased was also not recorded.
The Investigating Officer has not produced the case sheets
of the injured maintained by the concerned hospitals. The
Investigating Officer has not explained anything regarding
the non-production of the case sheets pertaining to the
injured Vithal, who was alive until 24.01.2016.
42. Admittedly, the deceased has taken treatment
in Government Hospital, Humnabad, Government Hospital,
– 24 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
Bidar, Basaveshwara Hospital, Kalaburagi and Government
Hospital, Kalaburagi. However, the Investigating Officer
has not collected any material as to the treatment given to
the deceased by the concerned hospitals. If the case
sheet and relevant documents are produced, then the
Court can ascertain as to the health condition of the
deceased. All these material documents not produced by
the Investigating Officer. The opinion as to the cause of
death shown in the post-mortem report is that the death is
due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of head injury
sustained leading to cardio-respiratory failure. The age of
the deceased was 70 years at the time of alleged incident.
Without the production of the case sheet maintained by
the concerned authorities, it is not possible to ascertain
that the cause of death was attributable to the head
injuries sustained by the deceased. The medical officer,
who has conducted post-mortem examination of the
deceased, has also not been examined by the prosecution.
On the basis of the complaint, the case was registered
– 25 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
against seven accused. Thereafter, the Investigating
Officer has recorded the further statements of the
witnesses and inserted another six accused. After
investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the
chargesheet against only accused 1 to 4. The
Investigating Officer has not properly explained as to the
insertion of another nine accused and thereafter dropping
nine accused and filing the chargesheet only against
accused 1 to 4. All the independent witnesses have not
supported the case of the prosecution. DW1-Mithun and
DW.2-Aarti have deposed in their evidence that in the year
2016 when Aarti returned from Kalaburagi to her village at
06.00 p.m., near Community Hall, Mallesh and Ramesh
picked up quarreled with her. It is further stated that
Mallesh assaulted DW2 with a knife on her both hands,
causing cut injuries. In this regard, PW17-Basheeruddin
Patel, the Investigating Officer has clearly admitted that
the accused have filed a complaint against PW6-Mallesh. A
case was registered against them. The evidence of DW1
– 26 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
and DW2 reveals that on the date of the incident Mallesh-
PW6 complainant also assaulted DW2-Aarti with a knife.
All these material facts have not been disclosed by the
prosecution witnesses.
43. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the counter case filed against accused-
Mallesh and others in the same Court, has ended in
acquittal in S.C.No.101/2018. Since there is a counter-
case against the material prosecution witnesses viz. PW6
and PW9 to PW12 who are related and interested
witnesses, their evidence against the accused requires
careful scrutiny. However, their testimonies are not
consistent, nor are they corroborated by any independent
witnesses. Further, their evidence is contradictory inter
se, particularly, with regard to the weapon allegedly used
in the commission of the offence and the place of
occurrence.
44. Upon a meticulous examination of the entire
evidence on record, it appears that the prosecution has
– 27 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
suppressed material facts. The evidence of PW6 and PWs9
to 12 which is not corroborated by any independent
witnesses, is not trustworthy or credible and therefore
cannot be relied upon. On the basis of the evidence of the
aforesaid witnesses, it is not safe to convict the accused
for alleged offences. In view of the principles of criminal
jurisprudence, the benefit of doubt shall be given to the
accused. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer
point No.1 in the Negative.
Regarding Point No.2:
45. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(a) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
(b) The judgment of conviction dated
09.11.2023 and order on sentence dated
10.11.2023, passed in Sessions Case
No.195/2016, by the II Additional District
– 28 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2848
CRL.A No. 200331 of 2023
HC-KAR
and Sessions Judge, Bidar, Sitting at
Basavakalyan, for the offences under
Sections 504, 324, 304(ii) read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is set
aside.
(c) The accused are acquitted of the offences
under Sections 504, 324, 304(ii) read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(d) The bail bonds and surety bonds of the
accused shall stand cancelled.
(e) The Trial Court is directed to refund the
fine amount, if any deposited, to the
appellants/accused.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of this
judgment along with Trial Court records, to the concerned
Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
SDU,TIN,RSP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42 CT-BH