- 1 - CRL.A. NO.100182/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100182 OF 2023 BETWEEN: BHARAT MALAGI S/O. GUDLEPPA MALAGI AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: FRAMER, R/O. BEHIND SIDDHIPRIYA KALYANA NAGAR, HOSAPETE, BALLARI, KARNATAKA. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. L.S.SULLAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PSI RURAL POLICE STATION, HOSAPETE, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. 2. NAGARAJA S/O. LT.SHARANAPPA AGE: 40 YEARS, R/O. 12TH WARD, KALYANA NAGARA, HOSAPETE, BALLARI, KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWADE, SPP FOR R1; SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADV. FOR R2 (ABSENT)) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.377(1)(B) OF Cr.P.C., PRAYING TO, CALL FOR TRIAL COURT RECORDS IN S.C.NO.5026/2016 ON THE FILE OF IIIRD ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BALLARI, (SITTING AT HOSAPETE); SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IN SC NO.5026/2016 DATED 21.10.2022 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI (SITTING AT HOSAPETE) AND CONVICT RESPONDENT NO.2 (ACCUSED) PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 448, 504, 307, 324 OF IPC. - 2 - CRL.A. NO.100182/2023 THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 14.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The complainant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 21.10.2022 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete) in S.C.No.5026/2016, wherein the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent No.2/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 307 and 324 of IPC. 2. P.W.1, Bharath Malagi, lodged a complaint with P.W.14 on 22.09.2015 at around 9:30 p.m., alleging that the accused, his adjoining neighbor, had an ongoing dispute with his family regarding the compound wall, leading to strained relations. According to the complaint, on the same day at approximately 7:30 p.m., while the complainant’s mother (P.W.4) was preparing roti, the accused unlawfully entered their property by crossing the - 3 - CRL.A. NO.100182/2023 compound wall and began verbally abusing her with offensive language. Upon hearing the commotion, the complainant’s brother, Santosh (P.W.3), questioned the accused about his behavior. In response, the accused, angered by the inquiry, further abused the complainant’s family, threatened to finish off the complainant, and rushed back to his house. He allegedly armed with a chopper, re-entered the complainant’s premises, and attempted to strike P.W.3 on the neck. However, the complainant managed to snatch the weapon from the accused, sustaining a bleeding injury to his right palm in the process. The accused also allegedly dragged the complainant’s father into the altercation and hurled verbal abuses at him. 3. Following this incident, P.W.1 and P.W.3, having sustained injuries and feeling threatened, filed a complaint at the jurisdictional police station. A case was registered against the accused in Crime No. 145/2015 for offenses punishable under Sections 504, 307, 323, and 448 of the IPC. Upon committal of the case, the Sessions Judge - 4 - CRL.A. NO.100182/2023 framed charges against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and opted for trial. The prosecution, in an attempt to establish the guilt of the accused, examined 16 witnesses and submitted 24 documents, marked as Exs.P1 to P24, along with three material objects (M.Os.1 to 3). In his defense, the accused produced nine documents, marked as Exs.D1 to D9. After evaluating the evidence, the Sessions Court acquitted the accused of all charges. The complainant has now challenged this judgment of acquittal before this court. 4. The complainant's counsel argues that the Sessions Judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record, leading to an erroneous acquittal. He asserts that the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 3, along with that of P.W.2 (the complainant’s father), sufficiently establish the allegations against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. He further highlights the medical evidence, citing the testimony of P.W.11 (the doctor) and the wound certificates marked as Exs.P14 and P15, which substantiate the prosecution’s case. The counsel also - 5 - CRL.A. NO.100182/2023 points to the statement of P.W.2, who acted as a pancha witness, confirming the identification of material objects as per Ex.P2. Additionally, he refers to the forensic report from the Deputy Director of RFSL, which detected human blood of group ‘B’ on the machete, T-shirt, and gauze piece. He contends that this crucial evidence was disregarded by the Sessions Judge, leading to a flawed acquittal that warrants intervention by this court. 5. In contrast, the counsel for the respondent/accused argues that his client, a practicing advocate with a respected standing in society, has been falsely implicated due to a pre-existing property dispute with the complainant’s family. He emphasizes that apart from P.Ws.1 to 4, none of the other key witnesses (P.Ws.5 to 9) corroborated the prosecution’s claims, as they turned hostile, significantly weakening the case. He also points out the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, asserting that these discrepancies further erode the credibility of the allegations. He contends that the defence evidence clearly - 6 - CRL.A. NO.100182/2023 demonstrates the existence of a long-standing dispute, indicating that the complaint was filed with the intent to harass the accused. Given the prosecution’s failure to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, he maintains that the Sessions Judge rightfully acquitted the accused, and no interference by this court is warranted. 6. In light of these arguments and the evidence on record, the court must now determine whether the Sessions Judge’s findings suffer from legal or factual errors that necessitate a reconsideration of the acquittal. 7. The following point would arise for our consideration: Whether the Sessions court was justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 307 and 324 of IPC? 8. Upon careful examination of the evidence presented before the Sessions Court, it is noticed that the prosecution examined a total of sixteen witnesses. Among - 7 - CRL.A. NO.100182/2023 them, P.W.1 is the complainant and one of the injured parties, while P.W.3, the elder brother of P.W.1, is also an injured witness in the case. The crux of the complaint revolves around an incident that occurred on 22.09.2015 at approximately 7:30 p.m. The complainant alleged that the accused unlawfully trespassed into their compound and engaged in verbal abuse directed at the complainant’s family. The provocation for this altercation, as per the complaint, was the accused’s grievance that the preparation of roti by P.W.1’s mother was causing him distress. In a fit of rage, the accused purportedly retreated to his house, retrieved a machete, and subsequently assaulted P.W.3. However, as per the complaint, P.W.3 managed to shield himself from the attack, and in the ensuing struggle, P.W.1 sustained injuries to his palm while attempting to seize the weapon from the accused. 9. During the trial, there was a notable divergence in the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.3 from what was originally stated in the complaint. Both witnesses provided an improved version of the incident, stating that P.W.1 - 8 - CRL.A. NO.100182/2023 intervened and successfully blocked the accused from attacking P.W.3, which led to his injuries. This variation in their testimonies presents an inconsistency when compared to the original complaint, wherein it was stated that P.W.1 sustained injuries while trying to snatch the weapon from the accused. Additionally, a critical discrepancy was noted in the medical evidence. The wound certificate, marked as Ex.P15, originally indicated that the injury was on the left palm of P.W.1, but a subsequent alteration replaced the word "left" with "right." Moreover, the second lacerated wound mentioned in the medical records lacks specificity regarding whether the injury was sustained on the right or left hand. These inconsistencies undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative. 10. Further, although the prosecution cited P.Ws.4 to 9 as eyewitnesses who allegedly intervened to pacify the situation, none of these witnesses corroborated the prosecution’s case. They turned hostile and refrained from supporting the allegations made against the accused. In - 9 - CRL.A. NO.100182/2023 the absence of independent corroboration, the case rests solely on the testimonies of the complainant and his family members, which raises concerns regarding its reliability. The prosecution failed to provide compelling evidence to establish beyond doubt that the accused trespassed into the complainant’s compound with a deadly weapon and attempted to cause grievous harm. 11. The defence presented by the accused provides a contextual background to the dispute between both parties. The evidence adduced by the accused suggests that there was a pre-existing conflict between him and the complainant’s family. The records indicate that the accused had raised objections concerning the complainant’s construction of a latrine, which was allegedly in violation of setback norms. The accused had taken formal steps to address this issue by approaching the City Municipal Council (CMC), which, after conducting an enquiry, directed the complainant and P.W.3 to remove the unauthorized construction and maintain the legally required setback. This directive was substantiated through - 10 - CRL.A. NO.100182/2023 documentary evidence, including photographs marked as Exs.P6 and D6. Moreover, the complainant and his brother, P.W.3, had provided an undertaking to the CMC authorities, affirming their compliance with the order to remove the latrine and adhere to the setback regulations. This prior dispute between the parties casts doubt on the complainant’s motives for initiating the present criminal proceedings against the accused. 12. On a comprehensive assessment of the evidence, it is evident that the essential ingredients required to establish an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) have not been satisfactorily proven by the prosecution. To secure a conviction under this provision, the prosecution was required to conclusively demonstrate that the accused wielded a chopper (M.O.1) with the intent to cause fatal injuries. Additionally, the prosecution needed to establish that the bloodstains on M.O.1 belonged to the complainant, P.W.1. However, the prosecution failed to present conclusive forensic evidence to substantiate this claim. The alleged trespass by the - 11 - CRL.A. NO.100182/2023 accused into the complainant’s compound has also not been substantiated with independent and reliable evidence. 13. A re-evaluation of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly P.Ws.1 to 4, reveals substantial inconsistencies that weaken the case against the accused. The modifications in the narrative presented during the trial indicate an apparent embellishment of facts. The acrimonious relationship between the complainant’s family and the accused is further evidenced by the dispute over the latrine construction, which had prompted the accused to seek intervention from the CMC authorities. This sequence of events suggests that the criminal complaint may have been filed as a retaliatory measure against the accused, rather than a genuine prosecution for an act of attempted murder. Furthermore, the failure of independent witnesses to corroborate the prosecution’s allegations further diminishes the reliability of the evidence presented. - 12 - CRL.A. NO.100182/2023 14. The defence has successfully demonstrated that there existed a prolonged conflict between the complainant’s family and the accused, supported by documentary evidence marked as Exs.D1 to D9. The strained relations between both parties, particularly in light of the dispute concerning the latrine construction and the setback violations, cast serious doubts on the credibility of the allegations made by the complainant. Given the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, the absence of independent corroboration, and the plausible alternative motive for filing the complaint, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Sessions Court was, therefore, justified in acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 307, and 324 of IPC. On reassessment of the entire material on record, we find no compelling grounds to overturn the findings of the trial court. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, point formulated is answered in the negative. - 13 - CRL.A. NO.100182/2023 ORDER The criminal appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE MBS Ct:vh