- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3246 CRL.A No. 200153 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200153 OF 2019 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)) BETWEEN 1. SANTOSH S/O BHIMA RATHOD, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2. VINOD S/O BHIMA @ BHIMLA RATHOD AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 3. LAXMAN S/O BHIMA @ BHIMLA RATHOD AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O: MUDNAL DODDA THANDA, TQ: & DIST: YADGIRI-585 202. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI CHAITANYAKUMAR C.M., ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH YADGIRI GRAMEEN P.S., DIST: YADGIR-585 202. REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH-585 104 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 31.10.2019 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE AT YADGIRI IN S.C. No.57/2016 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 341, 323, 324, 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC. Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3246 CRL.A No. 200153 of 2019 THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 11.03.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants / accused Nos.1 to 3 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 31.10.2019 in S.C. No.57/2016 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, wherein the accused Nos.1 to 3 have been convicted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as per their rankings before the Trial Court, for convenience. Factual matrix of the case is as under: 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 26.06.2014 at about 10.35 a.m. CW.14 Mallappa, Head Constable, attached to the respondent – police, received an - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3246 CRL.A No. 200153 of 2019 information regarding a medico-legal case from the Government General Hospital, Yadgiri. He went to the said hospital at 10.45 a.m. and approached P.W.1, Bheema and recorded his statement as per Ex.P1, wherein it discloses that said Bheema stated to be the witness in a criminal case which was held between CW6/PW5 and accused persons. A date was fixed to tender the evidence of P.W.1 - Bheema and he was going to the Court for the above said purpose. Along with P.W.1, P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 were also proceeding in the same direction. When they reached near the Government School in their village, at about 09.30 a.m., the accused persons came there and wrongfully restrained them and started abusing them in a filthy language and started assaulting P.W.1 indiscriminately. Accused No.1 - Santhosh and accused No.2 – Vinod caught hold of the shirt of P.W.1 and gave a slap on the cheek and also kicked on the back and abdomen. Accused No.3 – Lakshmana picked up a sharp edged stone and assaulted on the right thigh of PW1. Accused No.4 – Raju and accused No.5 - Mohan kicked on the abdomen and back - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3246 CRL.A No. 200153 of 2019 of P.W.1. Accused No.6 - Manoj and accused No.7 – Gopinath had also assaulted on the cheek of P.W.1 with their hands. Accused No.8 - Bhima abused P.W.1 in a filthy language. PWs.3, 4 and 5 pacified the matter and thereafter, P.W.1 went to the Government Hospital, Yadgiri for treatment. 4. Based on the said information, a case came to be registered by the respondent - police in Crime No. 147 of 2014 against accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet by including Sections 148, 307 and 326 of IPC. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution, in all, examined 13 witnesses as PWs.1 to 13 and got marked 10 documents as per Exs.P1 to P10 and also identified 4 material objects as M.Os.1 to 4. The Trial Court after concluding the trial and after having appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3246 CRL.A No. 200153 of 2019 acquitted accused Nos.4 to 8 for all the above said offences and convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the appellants are before this Court seeking to set aside the said judgment. 6. Heard Sri Chaitanyakumar C.M., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Trial Court while considering the evidence of all the witnesses, namely, eyewitnesses - PWs.1, 3, 4 and 5, recorded the acquittal of the rest of the accused and convicted these accused / appellants, which is improper and not appreciable. 8. It is further submitted that, in a case where the allegations are made against all the accused or in other words, if the overt-act has been attributed against all the accused independently, the conviction should have been - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3246 CRL.A No. 200153 of 2019 passed against all the accused, considering the evidence of the same witnesses. 9. It is further submitted that, even though Sections 307, 326 of IPC were added to the charge sheet, the fact remains that the Trial Court rightly rejected the case of the prosecution in respect of those two offences. That would indicate that the witnesses are not reliable and proper to be believed. Such being the fact, recording the conviction based on assumptions and presumptions, which is held to be erroneous and not proper. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court has to be set aside. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellants prays to allow the appeal. 10. Per contra learned High Court Government pleader for the respondent - State vehemently justified the judgment and he further submitted that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court in respect of accused Nos.1 to 3 are proper for the reason that, in the statement of P.W.1 made before CW.14/P.W.10, the overt-acts of all the accused were mentioned. However, during the course of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3246 CRL.A No. 200153 of 2019 appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court acquitted some of the accused as there was no evidence against them and convicted the persons who actually committed the offences. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Trial Court, by leaving the other accused, is proper and appropriate. There is no necessity to interfere with the said findings. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to reject the appeal. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction, it is appropriate to re-appreciate the evidence of all the witnesses for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether or not the Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence. 12. Admittedly, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. P.W.1 - Bheema is the injured and the complainant. P.W.2 - Lakshmana is the panch witness to the spot panchanama as per Ex.P2 and also the recovery of M.O.1 - stone under the said panchanama. P.W.3 – Kanthu, P.W.4 - Govinda, P.W.5 - Kishan, P.W.6 - Kamalibai, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3246 CRL.A No. 200153 of 2019 P.W.7 - Bali are stated to be the eyewitnesses to the incident. P.W.8 - Lalu is a panch witness to Ex.P5 under which knife has been seized and Ex.P6 under which clothes of the injured were seized. P.W.9 - Dr. Shanthesh Patil has treated P.W.1 in the Government Hospital, Yadgiri and submitted his report as per Ex.P7. P.W.10 – Mallappa is the Head Constable, who registered the case and also conducted the mahazar. P.W.11 – Dr. Sharanabasappa Karaddi stated to have treated the injured in the private hospital. These are the witnesses who are considered to be material to the case of the prosecution. 13. As per the evidence of P.W.1 – Bheema, he was assaulted by the accused. He made his statement as per Ex.P1 on 26.06.2014 while he was taking treatment at the hospital. As per the said information, he was assaulted by eight accused persons. However, in the evidence, he confined to only three accused and stated about them regarding the assault. This would indicate that he is not a reliable witness and his evidence ought not to have been - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3246 CRL.A No. 200153 of 2019 considered for the purpose of recording the conviction. Instead, the Trial Court ought to have given benefit of doubt to the present appellants. 14. P.W.2 has turned hostile regarding spot mahazar – Ex.P2 and not supported the case of the prosecution. 15. P.W.3 is the son of P.W.1. He was not present at the spot where the alleged incident had taken place. He is a hearsay witness. His evidence may not be helpful to the case of the prosecution. 16. P.W.4 is another son. He stated that the accused had assaulted his father both by using stone and knife. But in the examination-in-chief, he admitted that he heard the incident from his father. 17. P.W.5 has turned hostile by stating that he was not present at the spot where the incident had taken place. However, he heard the incident through P.W.1. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3246 CRL.A No. 200153 of 2019 18. P.W.6 is the wife of P.W.1. She was not present at the time of the alleged incident. Therefore, overt-acts of each accused cannot be attributable through her. 19. P.W.7 is stated to be an independent witness. When he was going to his land around about 10 to 11 a.m., a quarrel had taken place near the school. According to him, Lakshmana assaulted PW1 with knife, Manoj assaulted with stone and Vinod assaulted with stone. P.W.7 identified the stone and knife and he further stated that all the accused had assaulted PW1. In the cross- examination, he has admitted that P.W.1 is his relative. 20. P.W.9 is the Government Doctor who stated to have treated P.W.1 on 26.06.2014 and submitted his report as per Ex.P7. As per his report, the alleged injuries could be caused by using blunt-edged weapon. 21. P.W.11 is another Doctor who treated P.W.1. He has submitted his report as per Ex.P9. According to him, the injuries could be caused to P.W.1 by using a sharp-edged weapon. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3246 CRL.A No. 200153 of 2019 22. When there are inconsistencies in the evidence of eyewitnesses and medical evidence, obviously, the evidence of eyewitnesses prevails over the medical evidence. P.W.1 in his statement made before CW.14/PW.10 narrated the overt-acts of all the accused persons. However, in the evidence, he confined only against three accused, who are the appellants herein. Such being the fact, his evidence ought not to have been considered as reliable and proper. When two views are possible regarding the alleged incident, the incident which favours the accused should be given as a benefit of doubt. In the present case, as the Trial Court has not extended the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused, it is appropriate to set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and also proper to extend the benefit of acquittal to the present appellants. 23. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 is allowed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3246 CRL.A No. 200153 of 2019 (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 31.10.2019 passed against appellants / accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C. No.57/2016 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, is set aside. (iii) The appellants / accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, shall stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RSP/BSS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2