- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2481 CRL.A No. 100211 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100211 OF 2020 (378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS)) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, MUDALAGI POLICE STATION, GOKAK TALUK, DIST: BELAGAVI, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA) AND: SHIVALINGAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA SUNAGAD AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND SERVICE, R/O: MUNYAL, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591317. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HANUMANT R.LATUR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 27/11/2019 PASSED BY THE XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGVI SITTING AT GOKAK IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.137/2017 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 27/11/2019 PASSED BY THE XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT GOKAK IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.137/2017 AND TO CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDALAGI IN C.C.NO.283/2014 DATED 24/06/2017 CONVICTED A1 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 324, 504 AND 506 OF IPC. Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.13 12:09:49 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2481 CRL.A No. 100211 of 2020 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The State has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Civil Judge & JMFC, Mudalagi, wherein the respondent was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The case of the prosecution is that the first informant (CW1) and accused No.1 are brothers. There was a partition between them concerning their family property bearing Sy. No.74, situated at Munyal village. During the partition, they also divided the bamboo trees in the said survey number. The accused had already cut and sold his share of bamboo trees. 3. On 10.12.2010, at about 12:00 p.m., when CW1, along with his son (CW4), was cutting the bamboo trees on their property, accused Nos.1 and 2 picked a quarrel with CW1 and abused him in filthy language. Accused No.1 then snatched the axe from CW1’s hands and assaulted him on his head and right hand, voluntarily causing simple hurt. Thereafter, CWs.5 and 6 intervened and pacified the quarrel. The accused also threatened CW1 with dire consequences. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9, exhibited documents as Exs.P1 to P5, and marked the material object (MO1). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2481 CRL.A No. 100211 of 2020 5. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted them. 6. However, the First Appellate Court, upon reappreciating the evidence, held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and, therefore, passed a judgment of acquittal. 7. Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant-State and the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. A perusal of the statements indicates that PW1 is the injured party, PW2 is the son of PW1, and PWs.3 and 4 are eyewitnesses to the incident. However, except for making general and omnibus allegations that the accused abused them in filthy language, there is no specific detailing of the overt acts—such as how and in what manner each accused abused PWs.1 and 2 or threatened them with injuries. 9. To constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC, the prosecution must prove: i) The accused deliberately insulted the complainant. ii) The insult was made with the intent to provoke the complainant. iii) The insult was of such a nature that it could lead to a public disturbance or violence. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2481 CRL.A No. 100211 of 2020 10. To establish an offence under Section 506 IPC, the prosecution must prove: i) The accused threatened the complainant with harm (to body, reputation, or property). ii) The threat was made to instill fear. iii) The threat influenced the complainant’s actions. iv) It must be real and capable of being carried out. 11. Therefore, the essential elements required to constitute the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC are conspicuously absent. The First Appellate Court rightly acquitted the accused of these offences. 12. Regarding the assault allegation, it is claimed that accused No.1 assaulted PW1 with an axe on his head and right hand finger. The axe marked as MO1, though recovered, was not sent for forensic examination (FSL) to establish its use in the offence. 13. Given that the alleged injuries were bleeding injuries, the absence of forensic evidence on the axe raises doubts about the prosecution’s version. Furthermore, the wound certificate indicates that PW1 sustained abrasions over the dorsum of his hand and fingers on the right side, but it does not mention the name of the accused or the weapon used in the assault. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2481 CRL.A No. 100211 of 2020 14. The First Appellate Court, after considering these material inconsistencies, rightly passed the judgment of acquittal. Hence, I find no illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 90