- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:557 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100161 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS) BETWEEN: RENUKAWWA W/O. KARABASAPPA MULAGUNDA, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GUDDADAHOSAHALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY PSI HAMSABHAVI PS, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR RESPONDENT) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN CRL.APL.NO.41/2014 IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 23.06.2014 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, HIREKERUR IN CRL.CASE.NO.441/2008 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:557 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) The petitioner/accused No.2 is before this Court questioning the judgement of conviction dated 23.06.2014 and order of sentence dated 11.08.2014 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur [for short ‘trial Court’] confirmed in Crl.A. No.41/2014 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur) [for short ‘First Appellate Court’] dated 10.08.2018. 2. Parties to this petition are referred as per their rank before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The Police Sub-Inspector of Hamsabhavi Police Station filed the chargesheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code [for short ‘IPC’]. The accused No.1 so arrayed in the chargesheet was reported to be dead before trial Court - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:557 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018 itself. Therefore, case against him stood abated. The case against accused No.2, who is the petitioner now is proceeded. The brief and relevant facts as per the FIR are as under: 4. That one Dundappa S/o. Halappa Mulagund arrayed as CW1 in the chargesheet lodged the complaint before the Police alleging, that on 01.09.2008 at about 3:00 pm in RS No.132 of Budhihal village within the limits of Hamsabhavi Police Station, the accused named in the chargesheet with regard to installation of the electricity board to the bore-well, started quarrelling with the complainant, abused him in a filthy language and accused No.1 assaulted the complainant with hands and also assaulted him with a sickle on the back portion of his head, the right hand and caused the simple injuries to CW1. At that time, CW4 intervened to pacify the galata, at that time, the accused No.1 assaulted CW4 with a stick on his back portion of his head and caused him simple - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:557 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018 injuries. In furtherance of common intention these accused persons also abused the complainant and CW4 in a filthy language and gave a threat of life with dire consequences of life. With these allegations, a Complaint came to be filed which was registered by the Police for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. The Police after investigation, filed the chargesheet against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. 5. Before the trial Court, the accused appeared and copies of the Police papers were furnished to the accused persons as contemplated under Section 207 of IPC. After hearing both sides, the charges against the accused persons were framed for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:557 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018 6. When the trial commenced, accused No.1 was reported to be dead and a case against him stood abated as stated above, so also complainant/ CW1 died. 7. Before the trial Court, to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined 9 witnesses from PW1 to PW9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and MO.1 and 2 closed the prosecution witnesses. 8. Thereafter, accused No.2-the present petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C so as to enable her to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. She denied her complicity in the crime and did not choose to lead any defence evidence on her behalf. 9. The learned trial Court on hearing the arguments and assessing the evidence, found the present petitioner/accused guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and sentenced her as under: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:557 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018 “The accused shall under go simple imprisonment for the period of 1 year and shall pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of said fine she shall under go simple imprisonment for 2 months for offences punishable under section 324 R/w 34 of IPC. The accused shall under go simple imprisonment for the period of 1 years and shall pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of said fine she shall under go simple imprisonment for 2 months for offences punishable under section 504 R/w 34 IPC. The accused shall under go simple imprisonment for the period of 1 years and shall pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of said fine she shall under go simple imprisonment for 2 months for offences punishable under section 506 R/w 34 IPC. The substantial imprisonment shall run concurrently.” 10. This judgement of conviction and order of sentence was questioned by the present petitioner before the First Appellate Court by filing the Crl.A. No.41/2014. The First Appellate Court on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, confirmed the judgement of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:557 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018 the trial Court. Now, the present petitioner/accused No.2 is before this Court challenging the impugned judgements passed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court by filing this Revision Petition. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Avinash Banakar submits that, CW1/complainant who is stated to have sustained injuries has died. So also, accused No.1 died during the pendency of the case before the trial Court. He submits that the prosecution much rely upon the evidence of PW1-the another injured arrayed as CW4. According to the statement of PW1, the said incident has taken place at Umamaheshwari Temple, whereas the Panchanama, Complaint and as well as the other prosecution papers do reveal that the incident has taken place in RS No.132 of Budhihal village. According to him, there is, change in the scene of occurrence by this PW1. Further, he submits that except the evidence of PW1, the other so called eye-witnesses were examined by the prosecution have turned hostile. In the absence of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:557 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018 inconsistent evidence of PW1, he would submit that, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He would submit that in a criminal cases, the prosecution is under the obligation to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Each chain of circumstances have to be brought on record so as to connect the accused to the crime. He submits that the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have committed a great illegality in coming to the conclusion that the accused No.2 is responsible in the commission of the crime. He submits that as per the grounds made out in the revision as well as the defence set out by the accused person before the trial Court, the accused is entitled for acquittal. He submits that the Revision Petition filed by the accused to be allowed and impugned judgements are be set aside. 12. As against these submissions, Sri.Praveen K.Uppar, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that though, CW1 is dead during the pendency of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:557 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018 the criminal case, PW1-Sharanappa S/o. Dundappa Mulagund arrayed as CW4 was an eye-witness to the incident. According to his submission, the evidence of an injured witness plays an important role in a case of present nature. When he has come before the trial Court and deposed about the clear assault on him by the present petitioner/accused, it proves that the accused/petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged. Merely because, certain change in the scene of offence is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. According to his submission, the Investigation Officer has supported the case of the prosecution and CW1/injured also supports the case of prosecution. Therefore, he submits not to interfere with the judgements of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and therefore, he submits to dismiss this Revision Petition. 13. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of both sides and meticulously perused the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:557 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018 records. The only point that would arise for my consideration is, Whether the Revision Petitioner has made out any acceptable grounds so as to set aside the impugned judgement of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court as it suffers from infirmity and illegality? 14. My answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following reasons: As per the case of the prosecution, the incident has taken place at RS No.132 of Budhihal village within the jurisdiction of Hamsabhavi Police Station. Ex.P.1-the Panchanama at para No.3 shows that the said incident has taken place in RS No.132 of Budhihal village belongs to one Dundappa S/o. Halappa Mulagund. Whereas PW1 being the so called injured states in para No.3 of the examination and, in his statement that, the said incident has taken place at Umamaheshwari Temple. Therefore, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:557 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018 there is a complete change of scene of offence by the PW1. According to him, on the date of incident itself, at Ranebennur Government Hospital the Police recorded his statement. He could not say the time of recording his statement by the Police. 15. PW.1 being the injured though states in his examination-in-chief that before the said assault on him, the quarrel took place between him and complainant-CW1, he states that, on 01.09.2008 at about 3:00 pm, when he went to show the electricity board, at that time accused No.2 had broken the bore pipe and it was informed that, it will be repaired and because of this, there was some quarrel. Accused No.1 brought a sickle and assaulted CW1. He went to rescue CW1, at that time he was assaulted. He says that the accused No.2-the present petitioner by using the stick-MO.2 assaulted him. He identified both the sickle and stick as MOs.1 and 2. Further, he states that he has taken treatment at Government Hospital, Ranebennur. He has been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence. He - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:557 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018 states that, his father as well as the father of accused No.2, are brothers interse. There was a partition about 18 years back between them. He further states that, there were two bore-wells situated in the landed properties and both are together. He further states that, there was an agreement between them to partition of the said bore-well water equally. He further states that, there was a growing crop at the time of incident in the said landed properties. When he went to the landed properties, it was about 2:30 pm on that date. Further, he states that, when they were going to the scene of offence along with the electricity board, they wanted to bring the stone and grass also. Even they carried the grass with them. He cannot say that from what distance he has seen the accused persons coming towards the scene of offence. He further states that, because of the information furnished with regard to the repairing of the pipe, being enraged by the same, accused committed the said offence. Further, he states that, accused No.1 assaulted his father and by that time, they had crossed 2 to 3 acres of land. In the further cross- - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:557 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018 examination he states that, the offence has taken place at Umamaheshwari Temple, which is altogether different from the place which is stated in the complaint. 16. On scrupulous reading of the evidence of PW1, we do not find such contents in the complaint filed by his father so also his own statement. Altogether, difference in consistent evidence has been spoken to by this PW1 with regard to the incident. Even he states that he cannot say that, on which part of his body accused assaulted him with sickle. Even he does not remember that, when he went to the Hospital from the village. He states that accused-Renukawwa has assaulted him with stick. But, there is no proper evidence spoken to by him that, who assaulted whom. He further states that, another criminal case is pending against him wherein the accused is the complainant. It was a case of a robbery. He denied a suggestion made to him that, his father has sustained injuries. As stated supra, his evidence is quite against the contents of the complaint and his statement before the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:557 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018 Police. If such an evidence is placed on record by the PW.1, it really requires corroboration. 17. PW2-Shanmukhappa Bharamagoudra is the Pancha of the scene of offence. According to him, he was called by the Police to the scene of offence and in his presence, the Panchanama was prepared and got his signatures on Ex.P.1 and 2. He identified MOs.1 and 2. It has come in the evidence of PW1 that, after the incident, the sickle was taken to his house and PW2 states that the sickle was seized at that time preparation of Panchanama. When sickle was taken to the house, who has produced the same before the Police is not explained either by PW1 or by PW2 or by the Investigating Officers. Therefore, the very seizure of MO.1 is doubtful in this case. With regard to the presence of PW2 at the scene of offence at the time of preparing the Panchanama, his evidence is accepted. 18. PW3-Khuberappa S/o. Shivappa Honimath is the another Pancha of Ex.P.1. PW4-Hanamantappa S/o. Halappa Chakrasali is not an eye-witness to the said - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:557 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018 incident. PW.5-Marakappa S/o. Halappa Chakrasali is also not an eye-witness to the said incident. All these three witnesses have turned hostile, nothing worth is elicited by the prosecution by peculiar circumstances in the cross- examination. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 to PW5 would become inconsequential to the case of the prosecution and there evidence cannot be accepted. 19. PW.6-Dr.Nagaraj examined the injured in the Hospital and issued the Wound Certificate. According to him, the injuries sustained by CW.1 and CW.4 were simple in nature. It is the defence of the accused persons that because of cutting of the chain and by falling of the same, the injuries sustained by CW.1 and CW.4 may be possible and for this PW.6 has given a positive answer. When CW.4-PW.1’s evidence is full of inconsistencies and discrepancies, the possibility of sustaining injuries as opined by the Doctor cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the evidence of the Doctor can be accepted to the extent of issuing the wound certificates only. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:557 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018 20. PW.7-Ganesh Abbigeri, a Head Constable of Hamsabhavi Police Station has visited the Hospital to record the statement of the Complainant. Based upon the statement recorded, Criminal case was registered. To the extent of recording the statement of the Complainant, his evidence is accepted. 21. PW.8-Ramesh Ambiger is a Head Constable of Hamsabhavi Police Station at the relevant time and he enquired CW.1 and recorded his statement as per Ex.P.6 and set the Criminal Law in motion. To that extent the evidence of PW.8 is be accepted. 22. PW.10-Chandrappa Naduvinamani, a Head Constable of Hamsabhavi Police Station at the relevant time. He has appeared before the trial Court and deposed about registering the Crime in Crime No.109/2008 this fact is not disputed by the defence. Soalso the scene of offence and preparing the Panchanama as per Ex.P.1. To that extent, evidence of PW.10 is accepted. He has been thoroughly cross-examined. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:557 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018 23. On scrupulous reading of the entire oral and documentary evidence, I find that, except self serving evidence of PW.1, the interested witness, there is no other corroborative evidence spoken to by any of the witnesses so as to come to a conclusion that accused No.2 i.e., present petitioner has really assaulted this PW1. There is no proper connecting evidence to connect the present petitioner in the commission of crime. The prosecution case suffers from material particulars. The evidence of PW.1 is full of inconsistencies and discrepancies. There is a complete change of scene of offence by PW.1 with that of the evidence of PW.10. More over, based upon the evidence of Police officers, in a case of present nature it cannot be stated that, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. As the prosecution has not proved it’s case with legal and oral evidence, the learned trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have committed illegality in believing the evidence of PW.1 alone. Therefore, a doubt arises in the case of prosecution. More so, the complainant’s family and the accused family - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:557 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018 are close relatives and there are several criminal cases registered between them. Even PW.1 states that, he is attending the Criminal Courts for the alleged offence of robbery. A false filing of a case against the accused in view of the animosity and rivalry between them cannot be ruled out. Thus, the petitioner/ accused has made out grounds to allow this Revision Petition and to set aside the impugned judgments. Accordingly, point for consideration is answered in favour of the petitioner. Resultantly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Revision Petition is allowed. ii) The judgement of conviction dated 23.06.2014 and order of sentence dated 11.08.2014, passed in CC No.441/2008 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur, confirmed in Crl.A No.41/2014 dated 10.08.2018 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur) are hereby set aside. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:557 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2018 iii) Consequentially, the petitioner- accused is acquitted of the charges under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. iv) Her bail bond stands cancelled and he is set at liberty. v) Fine amount if paid, be returned to the petitioner/ accused by the learned trial Court direction. vi) Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment forthwith. vii) Registry is directed to send the operative portion of this judgment to the First Appellate Court and Trial Court through mail forthwith. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PJ/ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35