Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8882 CRL.A No. 100122 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100122 OF 2017 (A)
BETWEEN:
SRI. HANAMANT ATHANI S/O. SANGOND ATHANI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. RABAKAVI, TAL. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587311. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CPI, TERDAL TAL. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315, BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. 2. LAXMAN MUDAKAPPA HOSAMANI AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TERDAL, TAL. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 3. NINGAPPA KEDARI MALAGANVI AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TERDAL, TAL. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 4. SURESH YALLAPPA MALAGANVI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TERDAL, TAL. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 5. ARUN GURUBASAPPA YADAWAD
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.07.23 11:29:26 +0530
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8882 CRL.A No. 100122 of 2017
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. TERDAL, TAL. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 6. PARAPPA NAGAPPA ATHANI AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TERDAL, TAL. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 7. SADASHIV ALLAPPA HOSAMANI AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TERDAL, TAL. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 8. TULAJAPPA DUNDAPPA NIDONI AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TERDAL, TAL. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 9. TIPPANNA MALLAPPA ATHANI AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TERDAL, TAL. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 10. SIDDU RAMAPPA AMMANAGI AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TERDAL, TAL. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 11. CHIKKAPPA MONAPPA LOHAR AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC. CARPENTER R/O. TERDAL, TAL. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 12. MURIGEPPA MAGEPPA HANAGANDI AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TERDAL, TAL. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 13. KAMALAWWA W/O. SHIVAPPA WALI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. TERDAL, TAL. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 14. SADHANA W/O. TULAJAPPA NIDONI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8882 CRL.A No. 100122 of 2017
R/O. TERDAL, TAL. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 15. RAMAWWA W/O. YALLAPPA ATHANI, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. TERDAL, TAL. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 16. PARAWWA S/O. SADASHIV MUGALKHOD, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. TERDAL, TAL. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 17. YALLAWWA W/O. PARAPPA BELAGALI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. TERDAL, TAL. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 18. MOHAN S/O. RAJARAM PASALKAR, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. RAMESHWAR COLONY, JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.
SRINAND A. PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R17;
SRI. F.V. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R18)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 23.01.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE SITTING AT JAMAKHANDI, IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 45 OF 2013 UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 427, 436, 448, 109, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND PUNISH RESPONDENT 2 TO 18 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8882 CRL.A No. 100122 of 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
The complainant-victim has preferred this appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C against the judgment of acquittal passed in SC No.45/2013 dated 23.01.2017 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamakhandi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Sessions Judge’] whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents i.e., accused Nos.2 to 16 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 427, 436, 448, 109, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 2. The factual matrix of the case are that, the appellant-complainant-Hanamant i.e., PW.2 was working as a Manager in CL2 Bar and Restaurant belongs to one M.J. Torgal situated at Sasalatti village. On 28.05.2012 at about 11:00 a.m., when he had been to the shop, the accused gathered near the shop, broke open the shutter of the shop with the help of pounding rod, threw the liquor bottles and snatched the gold chain of the complainant and slapped him. Thereafter, they forcibly opened the cash box and robbed Rs.45,000/- to
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8882 CRL.A No. 100122 of 2017
50,000/-. Finally, they lit fire to the shop by pouring petrol. Hence, on the same day, PW.2 lodged the complaint before the Teradal Police as per Ex.P3. On the strength of Ex.P3, the said Police registered FIR against 17 persons in Crime No.68/2012 as per Ex.P20. Subsequently, the Investigation Officers-PWs.17 and 18 conducted the investigation and laid charge-sheet against the accused for the aforementioned offences. 3. After committal of the case before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 427, 436, 448, 109, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC and read over the same to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.18 and marked 21 documents as Exs.P1 to P21 so also identified 2 material objects as M.O.1 and M.O.2. The portion of statement of PW.2 is marked as Ex.D1. 5.
On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the
- 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8882 CRL.A No. 100122 of 2017
charges leveled against them. The said judgment of acquittal is challenged by the complainant in this appeal
6. I have heard learned counsel Sri V.M. Sheelvant for the appellant-complainant, learned HCGP Smt. Girija S. Hiremath for respondent No.1, learned counsel Sri Srinand A. Pachchapure for respondents No.2 to 17 so also learned counsel Sri. F.V.Patil for respondent No.18. 7.
Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant vehemently contended that the trial Court grossly erred while acquitting the accused, despite prosecution placing sufficient evidence to prove the charges leveled against the accused. He contended that PWs.5 to 9 are the eyewitnesses to the incident and they clearly stated, on the fateful day, the accused gathered in front of the shop of PW.2 and forcibly broke open the shutter of the shop, robbed the cash and snatched the gold chain from him and lit fire on the shop by pouring petrol. The evidence of these witnesses clearly corroborates the evidence of PWs.1 and 3-the panch witnesses for spot and seizure mahazar. In such circumstance, the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. Hence, he
- 7 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8882 CRL.A No. 100122 of 2017
contends that the judgment under this appeal suffers from perversity and illegality. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal and to convict the accused for the charges leveled against them. 8. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents/accused contended that the trial Court, after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record, passed a reasoned judgment, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. They contended that there are much infirmities and contradictions in the evidence of PWs.5 to 9-the alleged eyewitnesses to the incident. They further contended, all these witnesses have failed to identify the accused persons in the scene of occurrence and their overt act. They also contended, according to the eyewitnesses, there were 500-600 persons gathered in the scene of occurrence and they failed to identify the accused in the mob. Hence, considering the said aspect, the learned Sessions Judge rightly acquitted the accused. Accordingly they pray to dismiss the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the documents available on record, the sole point that arises for my consideration is:
- 8 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8882 CRL.A No. 100122 of 2017
“Whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 427, 436, 448, 109, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC?”
10. As could be gathered from records, in order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence of PW.2-the complainant, PWs.5 to 9-the eyewitnesses to the incident.
On careful examination of their evidence, PW.2 has lodged the complaint on 28.05.2012 alleging that on the said date at about 11:00 a.m., the accused gathered in front of the shop and broke open the shutter of the shop and threw the liquor bottles, robbed a cash of Rs.45,000/- to 50,000/- and snatched his gold chain and finally lit fire to the shop. On perusal of his cross- examination he stated, he is unable to say how many persons were gathered at the time of incident in the spot and also he is unable to depose the specific overt act of each of the accused. He also admitted, he is unable to identify who are all the accused holding the weapons at the time of incident. According to him, there was a dispute between him and accused No.17 in respect of opening the liquor shop in the said premises. Hence, at the instigation of accused No.17, the other accused
- 9 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8882 CRL.A No. 100122 of 2017
committed the act. Except accused No.17, PW.2 has not specifically identified rest of the accused at the time of incident. Further, the evidence of other witnesses are concerned, PWs.3, 8, 9 and 11 have turned hostile to the prosecution case. Though, PWs.4 to 7 and 10 were supported the case of prosecution, they also deposed similarly as that of PW.2. According to them, a mob broke open the shutter of shop of PW.2 and threw the liquor bottles and lit fire to the shop. They also failed to identify all the accused persons individually. The prosecution has not recovered any gold ornaments or cash at the instance of accused. Further, on perusal of the evidence of PW.2 and other eyewitnesses, there are much contradictions and omissions in their evidence in respect of presence of accused and their identification at the spot of incident. PW.7 in his evidence has deposed that there were 500-600 persons gathered on the spot at the time of incident. In such circumstances, it could be gathered, the incident was committed by a mob and as such, the eyewitnesses also failed to identify the presence of accused at the spot.
This aspect elaborately discussed by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment. More over, the State has not preferred
- 10 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8882 CRL.A No. 100122 of 2017
any appeal against the acquittal order and the instant appeal is preferred by the complainant. 11. Further, this appeal is against the judgment of acquittal and it is settled position of law that the Appellate Court shall not interfere with the acquittal judgment unless the trial Court had not taken a plausible view. In the instant case, the Trial Court has taken a plausible view. I find no good grounds to interfere in the acquittal judgment. Accordingly, I answer the above raised point in the ‘affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal No.100122/2017 is hereby dismissed.
SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE
HKV CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2