- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41300 CRL.A No. 608 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 608 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: SMT GOWRAMMA W/O MALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT PERUMANAHALLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUPRITH K.H., ADV. FOR SRI. S. P. ANNEGOWDA, ADV.) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HASSAN RURAL POLICE …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP.) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 15.04.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL. S.J., HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.81/2009 - CONVICTING FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 326 OF IPC AND RESTORE THE ACQUITTAL ORDER DATED 28.05.2009 PASSED BY THE ADDL. C.J. (JR. DN.) & J.M.F.C., HASSAN IN C.C.NO.243/2002. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41300 CRL.A No. 608 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT Appellant/accused has preferred the appeal against the Judgment of conviction and order on drawn sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hassan in Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2009 dated 15th April, 2013 (for short “the first appellate Court”). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the first appellate Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Rural Police Hassan, submitted charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 29th November, 2001 at about 2.00 pm in Perumanahalli within the limits of Hassan Rural Police Station, CW1 and the son of the accused were playing with top. The son of the accused viz. Mahesh, took the top belonging to CW1 caught hold of him and tried to take back the top. At that time, the said Mahesh shouted and after hearing the same, the mother of Mahesh, i.e. accused, came there and snatched the top from her son and assaulted with the nail of top to right eye of CW1, thereby - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41300 CRL.A No. 608 of 2013 caused simple, as well as, grievous hurt to CW1. In the said incident, CW1 lost vision of his right eye and sustained grievous injury. Thus, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. 4. After filing charge-sheet, case was registered and cognizance was taken against the accused for the alleged offence. Charges were framed by the trial Court for the alleged commission of offence, the same was read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the guilt of the accused eight witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 8, six documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P6 and one material object is marked. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witness, but has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on her/his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal, State has preferred appeal before the first appellate - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41300 CRL.A No. 608 of 2013 Court in Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2009. The said appeal came to be allowed on 15th April, 2013. Without hearing on sentence, the first appellate Court has passed the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.75,000/-. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the first appellate Court, the accused has preferred this appeal. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned Judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the first appellate Court is opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case. The first appellate Court did not consider the plea of the accused. The incident occurred between two boys, i.e. son of the appellant and PW1. At no point of time, the appellant has interfered with the petty quarrel between the two boys. The case is filed by father of PW1 just to take revenge with regard to the civil case pending between the husband of the appellant and PW4-father of PW1. PW1- victim in this case has specifically stated that his clothes were not stained with blood. If a grievous injury is caused, there will be profuse bleeding and automatically the clothes will be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41300 CRL.A No. 608 of 2013 stained with blood. But in this case, clothes of victim is not stained with blood. Even the blood-stained mud was not seized during the spot mahazar. PW1 has stated in his evidence that from the place of incident he was taken to the Hospital in an autorickshaw. But PW2, who accompanied PW1-injured and PW4-father of the injured, has stated in his evidence that PW1 was carried by hand to Hanamanthapura from the place of incident. The said Hanamanthapura is 3-4 kilometers away from Perumanahalli i.e. the place of incident. The version of PWs1, 3 and 4 differ from each other with regard to shifting of PW1 to the Hospital and hence, there is no consistency in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses as to the alleged incident. The learned counsel would further submit that the Investigating Officer has not conducted spot mahazar soon after the incident. The alleged incident took place on 29th November, 2001. The mahazar was drawn by the police on 01st December, 2001. Prosecution has not explained anything as to the delay in conducting the mahazar and also seizure of MO1. The seizure mahazar reveals that PW2 has produced material object to the police, the same was registered in property form No.208 of 2001 and the same was submitted to the Court on 04th - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41300 CRL.A No. 608 of 2013 December, 2001, i.e. after lapse of four days from the date of its seizure. The investigating officer has not explained anything as to the delay in submitting the report of seizure to the jurisdictional magistrate as required under section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The medical officer has not disclosed the name of the accused and the weapon used for commission of offence. The wound certificate is also silent in this regard. Absolutely, there is no cogent, corroborative, consistent, and trustworthy evidence before the Court. Considering these materials and contradictions, the trial Court has acquitted the accused. However, without proper appreciation of evidence and record, the first appellate Court has convicted the accused without assigning any proper reasons. Hence the same is liable to be set aside. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal. 7. As against this, Sri B. Lakshman, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, would submit that the first appellate Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41300 CRL.A No. 608 of 2013 Judgment of conviction and order on sentence and accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal. 8. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following points would arise for consideration: 1) Whether the appellant has made out a ground, to interfere with the impugned Judgment of conviction and order in sentence passed by the first appellate Court? 2. What order? Regarding Point No.1: 9. I have examined the materials placed before me. it is the case of the prosecution that on 29th November, 2001 at about 2.00 pm, CW1 and the son of the accused were playing with top. The son of the accused viz. Mahesh, took the Top belonging to CW1, caught hold of him and tried to take back the top. At that time, the said Mahesh shouted; by hearing the same, accused-the mother of said Mahesh, came there and snatched the top from her son and assaulted with the nail of Top to right eye of CW1, thereby caused grievous hurt to CW1. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41300 CRL.A No. 608 of 2013 In the said incident, CW1 lost his right eye and sustained grievous injury. Thus, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 326 Indian Penal Code. To prove the case, prosecution has examined eight witnesses as PWs1 to 8, six documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P6 and one material object is marked as MO1. 10. A perusal of the complaint Exhibit P1 reveals that the incident took place on 29th November 2001 at 2.00 pm. Complaint came to be filed on same day at 9.00 pm. On the basis of complaint, police registered case in crime No.236 of 2001 for offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code and submitted FIR to the court on the same day at 9:30 pm. Exhibit P3-wouind certificate reveals that the injured was admitted to the hospital on 29th November, 2001 at 2.00 pm with the history of quarrel (ºÉÆqÉzÁl) and he was examined by Doctor on the same day at 3.00 pm and is sustained with injuries, i.e. rupture to the right eye, bleeding, no vision and abrasion over the right side nose, ½ cm x ½ cm deep. The wound certificate does not reveal the name of the person who has caused the injury. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41300 CRL.A No. 608 of 2013 11. PW6- Dr. K. Shankar, who has examined the injured, has not whispered anything against this accused. The weapon used for the commission of offence is also not disclosed in the wound certificate. 13. PW6 Dr. Nataraj, Medical Officer has not deposed anything against this accused. This material omission committed by the medical officer and also non-explanation by the investigating officer in this regard, will create doubt as to the alleged incident. If really, the accused has caused injury with the help of top, the injured would have disclosed the name of the weapon used for commission of offence before the medical officer. But he has not done so. The incident occurred between two boys that is the son of appellant and PW1. At no point of time, the appellant has interfered with the petty quarrels between the boys. The case is filed by father of PW1 only to take revenge as to the civil case pending between the husband of appellant and PW4 the father of PW1. PW1 has specifically stated that his clothes were not stained with blood. If a grievous injury is caused, there will be bleeding and automatically the clothes would be stained with blood. However, in the case on hand, the clothes of victim are not - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41300 CRL.A No. 608 of 2013 stained with blood. Even the blood-stained mud was not seized ceased during the spot mahazar. PW1 has stated that he was taken to hospital in an autorickshaw; but PW2 who accompanied the injured and his father, has stated in his evidence that PW1 was carried in arms Hanumanthapura from the place of incident and the said Hanumanthapura is about 3 to 4 km away from Perumanahalli. The version of PWs3 and 4 differ from each other as regards shifting of PW1 to the hospital. There is no consistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as to the alleged incident. The incident took place on 29th November 2001 and mahazar was drawn by Police on 01st December 2001. The seizure mahazar reveals that PW2 has produced material object to the police and the same was registered in property form No.208 of 2001 and it was submitted to the court after lapse of four days i.e. on 04th December 2001. The investigating officer has not explained anything as to the delay in submitting the report of seizure before the jurisdictional Magistrate as required under section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court has clearly observed that there is civil dispute between the accused and the complainant witnesses and all the material witnesses are - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41300 CRL.A No. 608 of 2013 related to each other and are interested witnesses. PW2, who is the mother of injured, has deposed that at the time of incident one Gowramma was present. But the set Gowramma was not examined by the prosecution. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that though independent witnesses were available, the investigating officer has not examined them. Only interested witness, i.e. PW2, has supported the case of the prosecution. In the absence of evidence of independent witnesses, since the evidence of PWs1 2 have not been corroborated by medical evidence, as discussed above, it is not safe to convict the accused solely on the interested testimonies of PWs1 and 2. The trial court has also observed that the DW1-the independent witness, has deposed that, before 1:30 pm when PW1 was brought before her, he had already sustained injury to his right eye. It is the specific allegation of the prosecution that PW1 sustained injuries at the hands of the accused at about 2.00 pm, but as the per version of DW1 who is a school teacher to the son of the accused as well as PW1, deposed that before 1.30 pm, she gave preliminary treatment to PW1 and when he took rest for some - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41300 CRL.A No. 608 of 2013 time, after that she informed about the injury to his parents. They came there and took him to the hospital. The version of the defence is more believable than the evidence of the prosecution. The trial Court has properly appreciated evidence on record in accordance with law and acquitted the accused. Even on appreciation of evidence on record, I do not find any error or illegality or infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court. It is well settled principle of law that cardinal principle in the administration of criminal justice is that in cases where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the one which is favourable to the accused must be adopted. 15. The first appellate Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and ignored the principle that in cases where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the one which is favourable to the accused must be adopted. Accordingly, the appellant has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the first appellate Court. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41300 CRL.A No. 608 of 2013 Regarding Point No.2: For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Appeal is allowed; ii) Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge at Hassan in Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2009 dated 15th April, 2013, is set aside; iii) Judgment of acquittal dated 28th May 2009 passed in CC No.243 of 2002, by the Civil Judge and JMFC, II Court, Hassan, is confirmed; iv) Accused is acquitted of the offence under sections 324 and 326 of Indian Penal Code; v) Registry is directed to refund the amount deposited by the appellant upon proper identification and as per rules; vi) Registry to send the copy of this Judgment along with trial Court records to concerned Courts. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 108