- 1 - CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100547 OF 2022 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE RATTIHALLI P.S., DIST: HAVERI, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SAMMANDSAB FAKRUDDINSAB TUMMINAKATTI AGE: 62 YEARS. 2. SHOUKATHALI S/O. SAMMANDSAB TUMMINAKATTI AGE: 32 YEARS. 3. LIYAKATHA S/O. SAMMANDSAB TUMMINAKATTI AGE: 27 YEARS. 4. HAJARATHALLI S/O. SAMMANDSAB TUMMINKATTI AGE: 34 YEARS. 5. RAHIMANSAB S/O. IBRAHIMSAB SHETSANADI AGE: 55 YEARS. 6. SHIRAJ S/O. IBRAHIMSAB SHETSANDI AGE: 47 YEARS. 7. NOORAHAMMAD S/O. IBRAHIMSAB SHETSANADI AGE: 40 YEARS. - 2 - CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022 8. MUSTAFA S/O. IBRAHIMSAB SHETSANADI AGE: 40 YEARS. 9. AMMERSAB S/O. IBRAHIMSAB SHETSANADI AGE: 42 YEARS. 10. SADIQ @ SOORAJ S/O. REHAMAMSAB SHETSANADI AGE: 42 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O. KIRGERI, TQ: HIREKERUR-581111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 (1) AND (3) OF CRPC SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 16.01.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR), S.C.NO.07/2017 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 16.01.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN S.C. NO. 07/2017 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 307, 447, 504, AND 506 R/W 149 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 22.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The captioned appeal is by the State assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.01.2020 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur) in S.C.No.7/2017, wherein the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 307, 447, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: On 24.04.2014 at about 2.00 p.m. while C.Ws.6 to 17 were cultivating the land bearing Sy.No.21 of Kirageri village, the accused all of a sudden in furtherance of common object formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons, trespassed the land, started quarrel with regard to partition of the properties. It is further alleged that accused No.2 abused the complainant, C.Ws.6 to 12 in filthy language. It is further allege that accused No.2 - 4 - CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022 assaulted with hands and knife on C.W.7. Accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted C.W.12 with tones, while accused Nos.5 and 6 assaulted C.W.8 with legs, and accused Nos.7 and 8 assaulted C.W.9 with hands. It is alleged that accused No.8 assaulted C.W.10 with legs, while accused No.10 assaulted C.W.11 with hands. It is alleged that C.Ws.6 and 7 were threatened by accused with dire consequence and attempted to commit the murder. 3. A crime came to be registered. The Investigating Officer undertook the investigation and laid charge sheet. On receipt of charge sheet, the charges were framed. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution in all examined 18 witnesses, marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. M.Os.1 to 4 were marked. 4. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. The accused denied the incriminating evidence and have not chosen to lead defence evidence. They produced the documents relating to the pendency of the - 5 - CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022 suit between the accused and the complainant. The learned Sessions Judge after conclusion of the trial, hearing the prosecution as well as counsel for the accused acquitted the accused. The said judgment and order of acquittal is assailed in the captioned appeal. 5. The learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, vehemently argued that the prosecution, having examined 18 material witnesses and produced documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P15 and Material Objects M.Os.1 to 4, has successfully established the guilt of the accused. He pointed out that C.W.1 has clearly supported the prosecution's case, and that the individual overt acts of each of the accused have been specifically substantiated through the eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution. He thus contended that the order of acquittal suffers from perversity. He further submitted that P.Ws.5 and 6, who were grievously injured in the assault by the accused, were taken to the hospital, and that these injured witnesses have provided a detailed account of the - 6 - CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022 individual roles of each accused. Their testimony is also corroborated by P.Ws.10, 12, and 13, who witnessed the incident and intervened to pacify the dispute between the complainant's family and the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, he argued, has ignored this crucial evidence, and therefore, the order of acquittal warrants interference by this Court. 6. The learned Additional SPP also relied upon the medical evidence adduced through P.Ws.14 and 15, the doctors who examined the injured witnesses. He emphasized that although the defense counsel cross- examined all the prosecution witnesses extensively, nothing material was elicited to discredit the versions of the eyewitnesses and the injured witnesses. Consequently, he contended that the judgment of acquittal is unsustainable and requires interference by this Court. 7. In support of his contentions, the learned Additional SPP placed reliance on various judgments in support of his contention that the testimony of injured witnesses must be given special weight, as the injuries - 7 - CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022 sustained by them corroborate their presence at the scene of the crime. He submitted that the evidence of such witnesses cannot be easily discarded. Therefore, he argued, the Sessions Court’s rejection of this material evidence has resulted in a miscarriage of justice, necessitating interference by this Court. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the accused argued that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court is in accordance with law and does not warrant interference. He contended that there is absolutely no incriminating material against the accused to justify a conviction. He further argued that the registration of the case at the instance of the complainant and his family was a motivated act intended to usurp the accused’s right and title over the disputed land. It was submitted that what is essentially a civil dispute has been deliberately converted into a criminal case, and therefore, the order of acquittal should be upheld. - 8 - CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022 9. Heard the learned Additional SPP for the State and the learned counsel appearing for respondents/accused. 10. The following point would arise for our consideration: “Whether the judgment and order of acquittal thereby acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 307, 447, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC suffers from perversity and warrant interference at the hands of this court? Finding on the point. 11. The prosecution's specific case is that on 24.04.2014 at about 2:00 p.m., while prosecution witnesses C.Ws.6 to 17 were cultivating the land bearing Sy.No.21 of Kirageri Village, the accused persons, sharing a common object, unlawfully assembled and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 143 read with 141 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 12. C.W.1, who is the complainant, deposed that at around 12:00 noon on the date of incident, accused Nos.1 - 9 - CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022 to 10 unlawfully trespassed onto the disputed land and began abusing C.W.1 and his family members using filthy language. They allegedly obstructed a tractor that was being operated on the field. During this altercation, accused No.2 is said to have assaulted C.W.7 with a knife, while accused Nos.1 and 3 allegedly assaulted C.W.12 with stones. It was further stated that accused No.4 assaulted C.W.6, and accused Nos.5 and 6 attacked C.W.8. The complainant also alleged that C.W.9 was assaulted by accused No.2 and C.W.10 was assaulted by accused No.9. However, during cross-examination, C.W.1 admitted that he had been residing at Shikaripura for the past 30 years, which is approximately 30 kilometers away from the scene of the incident. It was further elicited during cross- examination that around seven of his family members had traveled from Davanagere by bikes and an auto-rickshaw. It was admitted that apart from C.W.1, C.Ws.6 to 12, and the accused persons, no independent witnesses were present at the scene. Importantly, cross-examination revealed that there was no mention of Nurulla (C.W.7) - 10 - CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022 sustaining bleeding injuries due to the alleged knife attack by accused No.2. Furthermore, a long-standing civil dispute between the complainant’s family and the accused’s family was acknowledged. 13. Though the prosecution asserts that C.W.7 sustained bleeding injuries due to a knife attack by accused No.2, the wound certificate (Ex.P9) shows that C.W.7 only suffered simple injuries. Thus, the allegation of a serious attack with a knife by accused No.2 is not substantiated either by C.W.7’s testimony or by that of C.W.1, the primary eyewitness and complainant. 14. C.W.7, examined as P.W.6, failed to identify M.O.4 (the material object allegedly used in the assault). Moreover, the wound certificates (Exs.P9 and P10) clearly establish that C.W.7 suffered only simple injuries. A deeper examination of the testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 reveals that none of these witnesses were residents of Kirageri village, where the incident allegedly took place. Their presence at the crime scene is, therefore, questionable. It has been brought out during cross- - 11 - CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022 examination that C.Ws.4, 9, and 12 traveled from Davanagere by bus, while C.W.7 himself stated he came from Shikaripura. The circumstances under which these persons, who are not residents of the village, gathered at Kirageri village on the date of the incident, especially when a civil dispute was pending between the parties, casts significant doubt on the veracity of the prosecution’s case. 15. C.W.6, examined as P.W.6, stated that he and other witnesses were ploughing the field when, around 1:30 p.m., the accused arrived, abused them, and caused a commotion. He deposed that his brother, C.W.7, was assaulted by accused No.2 with a knife when he tried to intervene and that he himself was assaulted by accused No.4 with a stone. During cross-examination, however, C.W.6 denied any knowledge of a relinquishment deed related to the land, an important fact in the ongoing civil dispute. 16. C.W.8, examined as P.W.7, deposed that accused No.2 assaulted C.W.7 with a knife and that accused No.4 assaulted C.W.7 with a stone. He further - 12 - CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022 stated that accused Nos.5 and 6 abused him in filthy language and physically assaulted him. 17. C.W.9, examined as P.W.8, testified that he knew C.W.1 and was aware of the existing civil dispute. He similarly alleged that accused No.2 assaulted C.W.7 with a knife and that accused No.4 assaulted C.W.7 with a stone. He further stated that accused Nos.5 and 6 abused C.W.8 and that accused Nos.7 and 8 assaulted and kicked him. 18. The evidence of C.W.10, C.W.12, C.W.11, C.W.14, and C.W.15 is identical in material particulars. They all stated that the accused persons came to the field at around 1:00 p.m. and assaulted them. However, it is significant to note that all these witnesses are closely related to the complainant and, therefore, have an evident vested interest in the outcome of the case. 19. The doctors who treated the alleged injured persons were examined as P.W.14 and P.W.15. P.W.14 stated that on 24.04.2014 at about 2:30 p.m., C.Ws.1, 6 to 11 presented themselves for treatment. He found that - 13 - CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022 C.W.8 and C.W.7 had only simple injuries, the age of which was less than 24 hours. Radiological examinations (X-rays) showed no fractures or internal injuries. During cross-examination, P.W.14 admitted that such injuries could have occurred due to contact with a hard object rather than a knife. 20. C.W.19, examined as P.W.15, deposed that at around 5:50 p.m. on 24.04.2014, C.W.6 and C.W.7 were referred to him for further examination. He stated that C.W.7 was examined in the Surgery Department and reiterated that the injuries were simple in nature. 21. The prosecution case lacks support from any independent eyewitnesses. The overt acts allegedly committed by the accused, as stated by the complainant and other witnesses during investigation, are not corroborated by the medical evidence contained in the wound certificates. The records clearly reveal the existence of longstanding rival claims over the disputed land, and it is evident that the complainant and accused are closely related, being cousins, who have been litigating - 14 - CRL.A.NO.100547 of 2022 in civil court. The bitterness and acrimonious relations between the two families were thoroughly exposed during cross-examination. In light of the fact that the wound certificates disclose only simple injuries, and given that the overt acts attributed to each accused are not reliably substantiated, serious doubts arise regarding the prosecution’s case. On a holistic evaluation, it appears that the criminal proceedings may have been initiated as a retaliatory measure stemming from the civil dispute pending between the parties. 22. The appeal being devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Hence, we answer the point in the negative and accordingly, proceed to pass the following; ORDER The criminal appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE MBS/Ct:vh