- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3237 CRL.RP No. 100182 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100182 OF 2023 [397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)] BETWEEN: HARRY ROLAND, S/O. SIMON ALEXANDER D’CRUZ, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. NO. 4, MANJUNATH NILAYA, SAI NAGAR, UNKAL, HUBBALLI-580031. … PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. 2. SHRI PRAMOD @ PARMESHWAR S/O. NINGAPPA BASAPUR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK, R/O. ACHECHAVVAN COLONY, SAI NAGAR, HUBBALLI, NOW R/O. KOKATHE ONI, HUBBALLI-580020. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.02.25 14:30:37 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3237 CRL.RP No. 100182 of 2023 3. SHRI KALLANAGOUDA S/O. SHANKAR GOUDA KABBUR, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC. GOVERNMENT SERVICE, R/O. H.NO.31/12, PARASAWADI, 2ND STAGE, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI IRANAGOUDA K.KABBUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2-NOTICE SERVED- UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH UNDER SECTION 401 OF CR.PC., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 01.12.2022 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 19/2021 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 02.12.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JMFC, II COURT HUBBALLI IN CC NO. 233/2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 504, 506(2), 448, 427, 109 READ WITH UNDER SECTION 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) Challenging judgment/order dated 01.12.2022 passed by I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad (Sitting at Hubballi) (‘Appellate Court’, for short) in Crl.A.no.19/2021 and judgment/order dated 02.12.2020 passed by J.M.F.C-II, Hubballi (‘Trial Court’, for short) in C.C.no.233/2014, this revision petition is filed against concurrent findings. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3237 CRL.RP No. 100182 of 2023 2. Sri Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted prosecution case was based on complaint dated 10.12.2012 filed by Harry Roland D’cruz (complainant) stating that he was residing with Harsh Naidu in building on plot no.4 in Sy.no.202, Sai Nagar, Unkal, Hubballi, belonging to Nandkumar Naidu. It was stated said plot had a compound wall around it and that complainant was contractor for construction therein. When Nandkumar went to Shirdi, respondent no.3 (accused no.2) had property abutting to Nandkumar property and had quarrel between them, however same was sorted out. Complainant was aware of quarrel between Nandkumar and accused no.2 with regard to plot and that same was resolved. At about 5:00 p.m., on 10.12.2012, when complainant was busy in construction work with laborers i.e. Dadapeer, Gulab and four others, Pramod, a relative of accused no.2 came there enquiring about Nandkumar in heated language and by picking up iron rod lying nearby, threatened complainant and laborers that he would finish them, if they did not stop construction work. Immediately, complainant stopped work, sent away laborers and informed Nandkumar. Thereafter, Harsh Naidu informed complainant that left side compound wall was being - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3237 CRL.RP No. 100182 of 2023 brought down by accused no.1. When complainant reached spot at around 7:30 p.m., accused no.1 ran away from there. Therefore, he filed complaint alleging that accused no.1 and 2 frequently quarreled with Nandkumar over plot and on instigation of accused no.2, accused no.1 had demolished portion of compound wall thereby causing monetary loss to extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. Based on complaint, Crime no.162/2012 was registered by Vidyanagar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2), 448, 427, 109 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short). 3. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 07.04.2014, cognizance taken and summons issued to accused. On receipt, accused no.1 and 2 appeared, denied charges and chose to be tried. 4. In order to substantiate charges, prosecution examined 12 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.12 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P21. Thereafter, accused were appraised of incriminating material against them and their statements recorded under Section 313 of CrPC. They denied all material as false. Though they did not lead evidence, they got marked - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3237 CRL.RP No. 100182 of 2023 letter issued by Asst. Commissioner, HDMC, as Ex.D1 by confronting it to prosecution witness. 5. On consideration, trial Court acquitted accused of all offences. Aggrieved, complainant filed Crl.A.no.19/2021. Even same was dismissed on 01.12.2022. Aggrieved thereby, revision was filed. 6. It was submitted both Courts failed to appreciate testimony of PW1, PW3, PW6, PW9, PW10, PW11 and PW12 who supported prosecution case. They failed to notice that there were no omissions, improvements or embellishment in their testimony and that same were reliable, creditworthy and free from suspicion. Thus appreciation of evidence was not in accordance with law. 7. It was submitted, complainant examined himself as PW-1 and deposed in terms of complaint. There is corroboration of incident as per Ex.P2 - Seizure Mahazar conducted at spot with PW-2 and PW-4 as witnesses. Though they turned hostile, as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, there would be no impediment for accepting deposition of Investigating Officer for proving panchanama. Prosecution also examined owner’s son - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3237 CRL.RP No. 100182 of 2023 as PW-3, who was eye-witness, stated about demolition of compound wall. 8. Though prosecution had examined an independent witness - Siddanagouda as PW-7, during cross examination, he admitted that he was not aware about incident and turned hostile. It was submitted, Investigating Officers were examined as PWs-11 and 12. It was submitted, both Courts failed to assign proper and cogent reasons and that reasons assigned and conclusion arrived were not proper and correct. 9. While, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent no.1 - State supported petitioner, respondent no.2 remained served unrepresented. But, Sri Iranagouda K. Kabbur, learned counsel for respondent no.3, vehemently opposed petition and contended that both Courts had examined material on record in detail and on due appreciation and after assigning cogent reasons acquitted accused. Therefore, there was no scope for interference. 10. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and order. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3237 CRL.RP No. 100182 of 2023 11. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether impugned judgment/order passed by Trial/Appellate Courts call for interference?” 12. This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 (1) of CrPC. On Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held scope for interference in revision would be extremely limited normally only to questions of law and not finding of fact. 13. Main ground on which revision is filed is that there is no proper appreciation of material on record by both Courts and that reasons assigned for acquittal are not justified. 14. In order to appreciate said contention, a brief reference to prosecution case would be necessary. Accused are alleged to have committed offences of intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace under Section 504; criminal intimidation under Section 506; house trespass under Section 448; Mischief under Section 506; abetment under Section 109 with common intention by all accused under Section 34 of IPC. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3237 CRL.RP No. 100182 of 2023 15. To substantiate same, complainant was examined as PW-1, who though deposed in terms of complaint, but omitted to state about threatening by accused no.1. He also did not state that accused no.1 had come to spot at instance of accused no.2, apart from admitting that he was not issued with any document appointing him as Manager. Further, during investigation, JCB alleged to have been used for demolition of compound was seized under Ex.P2 - Seizure Mahazar in presence of CW-4 and CW5 pancha witnesses. But when examined as PWs-2 and 4, they turned hostile and did not support prosecution. 16. Harsh – eye-witness was examined as PW-3. But, he stated was unaware of description of property or who filed complaint. He failed to remember even minimum particulars of JCB, used for demolition of compound wall. There was also no explanation, why he did not file complaint, despite being son of owner of property. His statement that Investigating Officer did not record his statement render his deposition unreliable. 17. Ex.P5 was spot mahazar drawn at spot of incident. It was drawn in presence of CWs-2 and 3. But only CW-2 was - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3237 CRL.RP No. 100182 of 2023 examined as PW-5, who admitted in cross-examination that he was unaware about contents of Ex.P-5 and turned hostile. 18. Nandkumar - owner of plot was examined as PW-6. He admitted that plot on which compound was constructed did not belong to him, but to his daughter - Lekha. He also admitted existence of dispute about encroachment and O.S.no.154/2013, filed by accused no.2 against him which was pending and that Corporation had issued notice of encroachment to him. Further, only independent witness examined as PW-7 admitted that he was unaware about incident. 19. Dadapeer, who was one of laborers on date of incident and eye-witness to incident of threat/abuse, examined as PW-8 turned hostile. Likewise, Asst.Engineer of PWD examined as PW-9 admitted that he did not visit spot or made enquiry. Further, DD of HDMC examined as PW-10, stated that he was unaware of any notice issued with regard to property. 20. Further, PW-11, who registered FIR stated that complaint was not accompanied with any documents. Though he stated compound was constructed by complainant, no - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3237 CRL.RP No. 100182 of 2023 documents were collected. PW-12, Investigating Officer, who completed investigation and filed charge-sheet admitted that he had not recorded statement of registered owner of property. 21. Though prosecution had cited as many as 20 witnesses but they had examined only 12 witnesses, other witnesses CW-3, whose statement was recorded as Mahazar witnesses was not entered into witness box. Even CWs-7, 8, 9 and 11 were stated to be bar benders and their statement were recorded as eye-witness to incident and who were working in Nandkumar’s building were not examined. Prosecution also did not examine CW-15, driver JCB and who according to prosecution had demolished compound wall was also not examined, despite seizure of his vehicle. Besides, it is elicited that O.S.no.154/2013 filed by accused no.2 against Nandkumar. Therefore, continuation of these proceedings would also appear to be to counter civil suit. 22. While passing impugned judgment and orders, both Courts have duly appreciated above factors while acquitting accused. For aforesaid reasons, point for consideration requires to be answered in negative. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3237 CRL.RP No. 100182 of 2023 23. Hence, following: ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE CLK CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 28