- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5554 CRL.A No. 1482 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1482 OF 2021 BETWEEN: THE STATE BY CHINTAMANI RURAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP) AND: 1. NAGARAJA S/O. LATE ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 2. HANUMANTHA S/O. LATE ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 3. ANJAPPA S/O. LATE ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 4. MUNIYAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5554 CRL.A No. 1482 of 2021 5. VENKATESHAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 6. NAGENDRA S/O. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 7. ANITHA W/O. VENKATESHA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 8. CHINNAMMA W/O. VENKATESHA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 8 R/O. NARAYANAHALLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK-563 125. …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(1)(3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 01.10.2019 PASSED IN C.C.NO.528/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,323,324,504,506 R/W 149 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSOIN, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5554 CRL.A No. 1482 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT Though this matter is listed for admission, it is taken up for final disposal by perusing the evidence and documents submitted by the Learned HCGP. 2. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in C.C.No.528/2015 dated 01.10.2019 by the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Chintamani, wherein the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused/respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC. 3. The factual matrix of the prosecution case in brief is that: The complainant-PW.1 and accused No.1 are the residents of Narayanahalli Village and there exists some dispute between them with regard to an adjacent site, in which the accused was going on with construction. On the said background, on 02.04.2015, at around 4.30 p.m., all the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and tried to assault PW.1 using deadly weapons. They also administered - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5554 CRL.A No. 1482 of 2021 life-threat to the PW.1 and his family. Accordingly, PW.1 has lodged a compliant before the Chintamani Rural Police against the accused for the aforementioned offences as per Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1, the said police registered the case in Cr.No.73/2015 for the said offences. Subsequently, the police have investigated case and laid charge sheet against the accused before the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections143, 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC. . 4. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused before the trial Court, the prosecution examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 so also got marked three documents as Exs.P1 to P3. 5. After assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against them. The said judgment is challenged by the State in this appeal. 6. I have heard learned HCGP Sri Rahul Rai.K., for the appellant and perused the material on record. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5554 CRL.A No. 1482 of 2021 7. The primary contention of the learned HCGP is that the judgment challenged under this appeal suffers from perversity and illegality since the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a right perspective. He would contend that the trial Court after examining PW.1 and PW.2, i.e., the complainant and the eye witness, closed the prosecution evidence by discharging the other witnesses. As such, the learned Magistrate has committed a grave error and the impugned judgment calls for interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned HCGP so also the entire evidence on record produced by the learned HCGP. 9. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1, the complainant, he has totally turned hostile to the prosecution case. He denied the contents of his complaint - Ex.P1. Though the prosecutor cross-examined the complainant at length, nothing worthwhile has been elicited to prove the prosecution case. Further, PW.2, the eye-witness to the incident, also turned hostile to the prosecution case by denying the contents - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5554 CRL.A No. 1482 of 2021 of his 161 statement. The other witnesses cited in the charge sheet are the mahazar witnesses so also other official witnesses. Since the material witnesses i.e., PW.1 and PW.2 i.e., the complainant and the eyewitness have turned hostile, the learned Magistrate has rightly came to a conclusion that examining of the other witnesses is not called for to prove the charges leveled against the accused. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate has closed the prosecution side and acquitted the accused. In such circumstance, I am of the considered view that exception cannot be taken for the conclusion arrived by the learned Magistrate. Hence interference does not call for in the impugned judgment. Prominently PW.1-complainant himself given a go bye to the prosecution case by denying the complaint averments. In that view of the matter, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal filed by the State is dismissed being devoid of merits. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12