- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23386 CRL.A No. 323 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 323 OF 2012 (C) BETWEEN: 1. SHIVARAMAIAH S/O. BORAPPA, AGED 47 YEARS, EX-ZILLA PANCHAYATH MEMBER, TUMKUR, NARJNAKUPPE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK. 2. SHANEGOWDA S/O. ANANDAIAH AGED 40 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST KOPPALABARE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK. 3. GIRI GOWDA @ GIRI S/O. MUDLAGIRAIAH AGED 35 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, MEGALAPALYA, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK. 4. RAVI S/O. MUDDALINGAIAH, AGED 28 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, SHANTHAPURA, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK. Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23386 CRL.A No. 323 of 2012 5. BETTASWAMAIAH S/O. BORIAH AGED 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, VADDARAKUPPE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. C.H. HANUMANTHARAYA, ADVOCATE A/W SMT. ABHINAYA K. AND SRI. K.V. MANOJ, ADVOCATES) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, STATE BY KUNIGAL POLICE STATION, TUMKUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:2.3.12 PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE TUMKUR IN S.C.NO. 147/11-CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1, 2 & 3 TO 5 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.143, 436 AND 427 R/W 149 OF IPC AND ETC., THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT The appellants being accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 in SC.No.147/2011 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tumkur, is impugning the judgment of conviction dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23386 CRL.A No. 323 of 2012 02.03.2012 and order of sentence dated 12.03.2012, convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 436, 427 R/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 143 of IPC, accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 years and pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC and he is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC, accused Nos.3 to 6 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 years each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 149 of IPC, accused Nos.3 to 6 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months each and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 427 R/w Section 149 of IPC, with default sentence. 2. Brief facts of the case made out by the prosecution are that, there was a galata between PW1 and accused No.1 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23386 CRL.A No. 323 of 2012 and others since a long time. Accused No.1 was the Former Member of Zilla Panchayath, he was claiming right over the site, over which, PW1 had constructed a hut. It is the further contention of the prosecution that on 14.12.2009, at 12.30 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 6 forming themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object of setting fire to the dwelling hut belonging to PW1, came to the spot, and set it on fire. As a result of which, the hut as well as the food grains and other household articles were burnt, causing damage to the tune of Rs.12,000/-. Thereby, they have committed the offences as stated above. 3. Learned Magistrate took cognizance for the above said offences. The accused have appeared before the Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to 5, identified MOs.1 and 2 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but have not led any evidence in support their defence. However, Exs.D1 and 2 are marked during cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court after taking into - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23386 CRL.A No. 323 of 2012 consideration of all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused No.2 beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him. However, it held that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 for the above said offences and sentenced them as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused are before this Court. 4. Heard Sri.C.H.Hanumantharaya, learned counsel along with Smt. Abhinaya.K and Sri.K.V.Manoj, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned ASPP for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the appellants-accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 have made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23386 CRL.A No. 323 of 2012 My answer to the above point is 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 6. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 6 have formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of setting fire to the dwelling hut belonging to PW1 and on the date of incident, they came to the spot and set fire to the hut. As a result of which, the hut, food grains and other household articles were burnt causing loss of about Rs.12,000/- to PW1. 7. My attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the appellants to the first information Ex.P1, which was filed at the first instance. According to Ex.P1, the same was filed by PW1 on 14.12.2009 i.e., on the date of incident at 7.00 pm. As per Ex.P1, accused Nos.1 to 6 along with others came near the house of PW1 and they have caught hold of PW1, while others have set fire to the hut. Ex.P1 categorically states that the persons who were related to accused No.1 have set fire on her shed. But, when the informant was examined as PW1 before the Trial Court, she has given a go-by to her earliest version - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23386 CRL.A No. 323 of 2012 and stated that it was accused No.1, who had set fire to the hut and caused loss. The materials on record discloses that there was a long standing ill-will between PW1 and her family members, and accused No.1. It is stated that accused No.1 was claming the site in which, PW1 had constructed a hut and was staying there. 8. It is also the case of the prosecution that PW4 had came to the spot on the date of incident for the purpose of measuring the property and to report it to the Panchayath. His presence at the spot is not disputed. Even though he is examined before the Trial Court, he never states about the commission of the offence by the accused. He was treated partially hostile and was cross-examined by the learned prosecutor, but nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve his version. Therefore, only the version of PWs.1 to 3 is available to speak about commission of the offences by the accused. 9. PWs.2 is the son and PW3 is the brother of PW1. They are all family members. As I have already noted, there is lost of improvement made in the case of the prosecution, which - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23386 CRL.A No. 323 of 2012 is not explained. It is also pertinent to note that FIR came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 6 and 25 other persons. Even while filing charge sheet, the Investigating Officer has not found out as to who are these other persons, who have accompanied accused Nos.1 to 6. When serious doubt arises regarding the overt act committed by accused Nos.1 to 6 and setting fire to the house of PW1, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused and they are to be acquitted. 10. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has proceeded to accept the interested and improved version of PW1 to convict accused Nos.1, 3 to 6. There is absolutely no explanation as to why there was such inconsistency in the version of PW1 when she herself filed the first information. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23386 CRL.A No. 323 of 2012 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.03.2012 passed in SC.No.147/2011 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tumkur, is hereby set aside. (iii) Consequently, the accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 436, 427 R/w Section 149 of IPC. Their bail bond and that of sureties shall stand cancelled. (iv) Fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused shall be refunded to them after the appeal period is over. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment, for information and needful action. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16