- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2063 CRL.A No. 200028 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200028 OF 2021 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHARANABASAPPA S/O HANAMANTH JAPOOR, AGE:50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HAGARAGA, TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585102. 2. PRAKASH S/O SHARANABASAPPA JAPOOR, AGE:25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE, R/O. HAGARAGA, TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585102. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI MAHANTESH H. DESAI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2063 CRL.A No. 200028 of 2021 AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH UNIVERSITY P.S., REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT KALABURAGI-585 103 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI IN SESSIONS CASE No.296/2015 ON DATED 04.02.2021 AND ACQUIT THEM FOR THE ABOVE OFFENCES. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2063 CRL.A No. 200028 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants / accused Nos.1 and 4, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 04.02.2021 in S.C.No.296/2015 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, wherein the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 304 Part II, 504 and 341 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. The ranks of the parties before the Trial Court will be considered henceforth for convenience. Factual matrix of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that, the complainant was a resident of Hagarga Village staying with his wife and children. About one year ago, his son Dattu had availed a loan of Rs.60,000/- from one Sharanabasappa. On 19.06.2015, at about 07.30 p.m., when the complainant was going to a medical shop along with his son Dattu near Kanakadasa Circle, the accused apprehended him and demanded Rs.60,000/- from the son of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2063 CRL.A No. 200028 of 2021 complainant. When the complainant requested the accused that he would repay the amount, shortly, the accused Nos.2 and 3 held the complainant and slapped him on his cheeks and accused Nos.1 and 4 pushed the son of the complainant on the road and assaulted his son on the head and chest with stones. Further, the accused Nos.2 and 3 also took the stones and assaulted the son of the complainant on his chest. When the complainant raised an alarm, Revanasidda s/o. Jagappa and Basamma w/o. Siddappa came to the spot and pacified the quarrel and rescued them. In the meantime, the son of the complainant had sustained severe injuries on his head, left shoulder, stomach, right leg and other parts of the body and he was unconscious. The complainant immediately called an ambulance and shifted his son to United Hospital, Kalaburagi. The police visited the spot and recorded the statement of C.W.1. 4. On the basis of the statement of C.W.1, the police have registered a case in Crime No.186/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504, 307 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2063 CRL.A No. 200028 of 2021 5. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses as PWs.1 to 17 and got marked 14 documents as Exs.P1 to P14 and identified 3 material objects as M.Os.1 to 3 and on the defence side, got marked Ex.D1. 6. The Trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record convicted the accused Nos.1 to 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused Nos.1 and 4 have preferred this appeal. 7. Heard Sri Mahantesh H. Desai, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court is perverse, illegal and against the evidence on record. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 9. It is further submitted that Trial Court committed a serious error in holding that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2063 CRL.A No. 200028 of 2021 10. It is further submitted that the independent eyewitnesses, namely, PWs.5 and 6 have not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.13 is not an eyewitness. PW.12 - Basamma did not specifically mention about accused Nos.1 and 4. Though, it is stated that accused Nos.1 and 4 had assaulted the deceased with a stone, the postmortem report would indicate that there are no external injuries found on the body. P.W.12 further stated that the incident had taken place in front of her house, however, as per the spot panchanama, the alleged incident took place in front of Kanakadasa Circle. 11. It is further submitted that the incident has been witnessed by P.W.12 without having any source of light. Therefore, the intention to commit the said act has not been established. In fact, though the prosecution registered a case under Section 302 of IPC, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304 Part – II of IPC. Hence, the appeal may be allowed and the appellants are required to be acquitted. 12. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State vehemently submitted that the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2063 CRL.A No. 200028 of 2021 judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court is proper and appropriate. In fact, the Trial Court reduced the sentence for the offence under Section 304 Part – II of IPC. Hence, the judgment of conviction requires to be upheld. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court, the accused Nos.1 and 4 assaulted the deceased Dattu. The accused Nos.2 and 3 assaulted C.W.1 on his cheek. The specific overt act against accused Nos.1 and 4 is that, they assaulted the deceased with a stone. The Trial Court further opined that both accused Nos.1 and 4 had no knowledge or prior concert regarding the commission of the murder of the deceased. In fact, the Trial Court opined that the quarrel took place at a spur of moment without any intention. 14. The State has not preferred any appeal against the inadequacy of the sentence passed by the Trial Court. Be that as it may, in the present case, PWs.12 and 13 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. As per the evidence of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2063 CRL.A No. 200028 of 2021 P.W.12, she was standing in front of the grocery shop; the alleged quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased at about 7.30 p.m. She further stated that she could see the incident from her house. 15. P.W.13 is the mother of the deceased Dattu. She deposed that she knew accused Nos.1 to 4 who were present before the Court. She further stated that four years ago at about 7.30 p.m, her husband and her son went out of the house to bring medicine from the medical store. She was told that accused Nos.1 to 4 had attacked her son as her son had to pay Rs.60,000/-, to accused No.1. On hearing the said news, she went to Kanakadas Circle, accused Nos.1 to 4 were assaulting her son with a stone. The overt-act of accused Nos.1 to 4 has been explained by her. 16. As per the evidence of P.W.12, accused Nos.1 and 4 assaulted on the head of the deceased Dattu with a stone, accused Nos.2 and 3 slapped the father of the deceased with their hands, however, P.W.13 being the mother of the deceased stated that accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted the deceased all over the body. Further, she stated that - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2063 CRL.A No. 200028 of 2021 accused Nos.2 and 3 slapped her husband. The Doctor who conducted the postmortem submitted the report as per Ex.P7, stating that the cause of death was due to blunt injury on the chest resulting in haemophthorax leading to cardio respiratory failure. The fact of death might be the different reasons, but, the prosecution has failed to establish that the deceased died due to the assault of the accused. In fact, the evidence of Doctor has not supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover, none of the of the independent witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. There are some exaggeration in respect of the incident and the overt-act of the appellant and others. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence properly resulting in passing the impugned judgment. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 17. Having considered the material inconsistencies in the evidence of eyewitnesses and also other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that, the appellants have made out a case to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. 18. Hence, I proceed to pass the following - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2063 CRL.A No. 200028 of 2021 ORDER i) The criminal appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment of conviction dated 04.02.2021 and order on sentence dated 10.02.2021 passed in Session Case No.296/2015 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi, is set aside. iii) The appellants / accused Nos.1 and 4 are acquitted for the offences under Sections 304 Part II, 504 and 341 of IPC. iv) Bail bonds executed if any, stands cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE TMP/UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48 CT:PK