- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21647 CRL.A No. 1240/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1240/2020 (A) BETWEEN: THE STATE BY CHINTAMANI RURAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 …APPELLANT (BY SRI ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP) AND: 1. MUNIREDDY S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY AGED 67 YEARS 2. VENKATASWAMYREDDY S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED 57 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O HADIGERE VILLAGE CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 101 …RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE SERVED) CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED U/S 378(1) & (3) CR.PC PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 01.10.2019 PASSED IN C.C.NO.172/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHINTAMANI OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341,323,324,504,506 R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21647 CRL.A No. 1240/2020 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned HCGP. 2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani in CC No.172/2018. 3. By the impugned judgment and order, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. Accused were tried in the said case on the charge that on 22.01.2017 at 9:45 p.m. when CW.1/PW.1 was proceeding in front of house of Muniraju, accused Nos.1 and 2 with common intention wrongfully restrained him, abused him with foul language and threatened him of his life. Further accused No.2 assaulted CW1/PW.1 with a sickle on his head and caused him simple injuries. When CW.2 went to the rescue of PW.1, accused No.1 bet her and criminally intimidated her. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused on the ground that PW.1 who was allegedly assaulted with sickle has not supported the prosecution and other witnesses were given up. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21647 CRL.A No. 1240/2020 5. Learned HCGP submits that prosecution did not give up those witnesses, but the Trial Court rejected Additional Public Prosecutor’s request to summon them. 6. It is not disputed that the alleged assault with deadly weapon was on PW.1. He did not support prosecution case. It is forthcoming from the judgment that he totally denied the occurrence of incident and assault. Judgment further indicates that PW.1 in the cross-examination admitted that he compromised the matter with accused. 7. The Trial Court rejected the prayer of Additional Public Prosecutor to issue summons to the other witnesses. The State has not challenged the said order. The State has not even filed any application to recall the said order. Apart from that, except offence under Section 324 IPC, all other offences were compoundable one. Allegations of offence under Section 324 IPC were against accused No.2. PW.1 did not support the prosecution. Therefore, even if the trial is continued, there would have no chance of prosecution succeeding in the matter. Allegation against accused No.1 was only beating PW.2 with bare hands. Scope of interference in an appeal against the acquittal judgment is very limited. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21647 CRL.A No. 1240/2020 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case to admit the appeal. Hence appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11