- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26152-DB CRL.A No. 2236 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2236 OF 2022 (A) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHANNAPATNA EAST POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II.) AND: 1. SHRI. NADDU @ NADEEM @ NADEEM PASHA S/O ANSAR KHAN AGE: 29 YEARS, R/O NO.1562, NIJAMI CHOWK, CHANNAPATNA TOWN. 2. SHRI MUJAMIL @ MUJAMIL PASHA S/O IMAMASAB AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.13, KALANAGAR, CHANNAPATNA TOWN-571501. Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26152-DB CRL.A No. 2236 of 2022 3. SADDAM S/O AHMED MIYA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT KALANAGAR, CHANNAPATNA TOWN - 571501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NATARAJ D., ADV. FOR R2, NOTICE TO R3 SERVED, APPEAL AS AGAINST THE R1 IS STAND DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 05.03.2024.) [CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED: 05.03.2024.] THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 24.04.2019 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN S.C.NO.58/2018, IN SO FAR AS RESPONDENT - ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 ARE CONCERNED IN ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 34 OF IPC AND ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B) AND 302 R/W 34 OF Indian Penal Code AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA State has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of acquittal dated 24th April, 2019 passed in SC No.58 of 2018 by III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ramanagara (for short - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26152-DB CRL.A No. 2236 of 2022 "the trial Court") whereby accused 2 & 3 were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Circle Inspector of Police Channapattana Town Circle, has laid charge- sheet against the accused 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 21st September 2017 at 12:30 pm at the edge of Bangalore-Mysore Road in front of Government Urdu School near old Daira of Channapatna town, accused 1 to 3, with an intention to kill Faisal Khan son of CW1 for the reason that he helped the wife of CW7, have conspired together near the RMC Yard and in furtherance of conspiracy, accused No.1 stabbed Faisal Khan on his left chest by a button knife, accused No.2 assaulted on his right elbow by a long knife and accused No.3 assaulted on his left hand by a deadly weapon and caused grievous injuries. Immediately, the victim was shifted to Channapattana Government Hospital for first aid and for further treatment, when they were shifting the victim to District Hospital, Mandya, on the way he succumbed to the injuries sustained. Thus, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26152-DB CRL.A No. 2236 of 2022 accused committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. After filing the charge-sheet, case was registered in CC No.1513 of 2017 and after committal to the Sessions Court, case came to be registered in SC No.58 of 2018. Charges were framed by the trial Court against the accused for the offence punishable and Sections 120B, 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The same was explained to the accused in the language known to them. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, 24 witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 24, and 49 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P49 and eleven material objects were marked as MOs1 to 11. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused have totally denied the evidence of Prosecution witnesses but have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused No.1 for offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and accused No.2 was convicted for the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26152-DB CRL.A No. 2236 of 2022 offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code. Accused 1 to 3 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accused No.3 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by this Judgment of acquittal of accused 2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, State has preferred this appeal. 4. Sri Rajat Subramanyam, learned High Court Government Pleader, has submitted that accused No.1 had preferred appeal before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1142 of 2019. The said appeal was allowed in part as per Judgment dated 27th March 2023. In view of the judgment, the sentence passed against accused No.1 for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code was modified and accused No.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 304 Part-I of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26152-DB CRL.A No. 2236 of 2022 payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two years. It is further ordered that on deposit of fine amount of Rs.1,50,000/- by the accused, Rs.1,45,000/-, shall be paid to PW1-Jabiullah father of deceased Faisal Khan, in view of the provisions of Section 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The copy of the Judgment dated 27th March 2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1142 of 2019 is also produced. It is submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader and also the learned Counsel appearing for the accused No.2 that accused No.2 has already undergone sentence imposed by the trial Court for offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and has not preferred any appeal for conviction under the said Section. 5. In paragraph 24 of the Judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.1142 of 2019, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, has observed thus: "24. Admittedly, the State Government has not challenged the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions holding that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 to 3, with an intention to eliminate Faizal Khan as he had helped the wife of C.W.7 had conspired together and have - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26152-DB CRL.A No. 2236 of 2022 committed an offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC. So also acquittal of accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC though he is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. When common charges are framed against all the accused and P.Ws.1 and 2 have in categorical terms have spoken that all the accused persons had assaulted the deceased with M.Os.9 to 11, the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, issued the report that the deceased sustained four injuries, which is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 that accused No.1 stabbed the deceased on his left chest with a button knife, accused No.2 assaulted right elbow by long knife and accused No.3 assaulted on the right hand of the deceased with deadly weapon and caused the grievous injuries. When all the three persons, who were holding the material objects M.Os.9 to 11, have stabbed the deceased is corroborated by the evidence of the doctor P.W.20, who issued the post-mortem report Ex.P.48 stating that there were four injuries and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, father and uncle of the deceased, who are highly interested witnesses, that all the three accused persons with common intention assaulted the deceased with M.Os.9 to 11, but very strangely, when common charges are framed against all the accused persons, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused No.2 as he was not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC., but as he had assaulted the deceased with M.O.10 knife and caused simple injuries, he was convicted holding him guilty for an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26152-DB CRL.A No. 2236 of 2022 In so far as accused No.3, it was held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused No.3 for the offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 120B and 302 r/w 34 of IPC., and as such acquitted him for the said offences; and only accused No.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Absolutely, there is no motive for the accused persons to cause the death. The only statement made by P.Ws.1 and 2 is that there was some matrimonial dispute between P.Ws.9 and 10, with regard to which, earlier Faizal Khan had gone to their house for settlement and thereafter, it is for the second time, the accused called him, but the deceased had refused to go there. Thereby, there arose animosity between the accused persons and the deceased. When the version of P.Ws.9 and 10 - husband and wife is that there was no such family dispute between them and no panchyath was convened, the very cause shown by P.W.1 in Ex.P.1 - the complaint and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be accepted." 6. Before passing the Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.1142 of 2019, the State has not brought to the notice of the court, the judgment of acquittal against accused 2 and 3 for offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B read with Section 34 of Indian penal code. However, on merits, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed that absolutely there is no motive for the accused to cause death of the deceased. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26152-DB CRL.A No. 2236 of 2022 7. On meticulous examination of the entire evidence on record, we do not find any evidence to constitute the offence under Sections 120B, 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against accused 2 and 3. We do not find any error or irregularity or legal infirmity in the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court as against accused 2 and 3. Hence, being devoid of merit, appeal stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5