- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9236 CRL.A No. 100016 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100016 OF 2017 (C) BETWEEN: MALAGOUDA S/O. SHIVANGOUDA BHADRAKALI AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HUDALI, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PSI, MARIHAL P.S., R/BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK KATTIMANI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CRPC SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 09.12.2016 PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO.213 OF 2012 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE 324 OF IPC BY THE HON'BLE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCE WITH WHICH HE HAS BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9236 CRL.A No. 100016 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) The convict accused in S.C. No.213/2012 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi, has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 09.12.2016 by which he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years, and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. i) An information was furnished about the commission of a cognizable offence by the accused to the respondent-police. It was stated therein that the accused herein had assaulted the complainant, her daughter and her husband over a land dispute. Based on such information, the respondent-Police registered Crime No.175/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 326, 307 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. ii) The Investigating Officer visited the spot and drew relevant mahazars and recovered material objects from the scene of offence, recorded the statement of witnesses and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9236 CRL.A No. 100016 of 2017 arrested the accused. Later, on being satisfied that the accused had committed the act in self-defence, filed a ‘B’ Report. iii) The JMFC-III, Belagavi issued a notice to the complainant pursuant to which she appeared and filed a protest memo against acceptance of B report. She was examined as C.W.1 and three other witnesses were examined as C.W.2 to C.W.4. They produced three documents. The JMFC-III, Belagavi, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and secured the presence of the accused. The prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as stipulated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and the accused was committed to the Sessions Court since a counter-case was pending before the Sessions Court in S.C. No.18/2010. After committal, the Sessions Court secured the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2 and framed charges under Section 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused. However, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. iv) In order to prove its case, the prosecution relied upon four witnesses namely, the complainant, the injured - - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9236 CRL.A No. 100016 of 2017 daughter of the complainant, and the injured who was also the accused in counter-case in S.C. No.18/2010 as well as the doctor who recorded the wounds suffered by the injured. The prosecution examined four witnesses as PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and M.Os.1 to 6 were also marked. After the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution, the incriminating evidence against the accused was read over as prescribed under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the evidence. They filed a statement explaining that they committed the act in self-defence. However, the accused did not lead any evidence in defence. v) After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the prosecution has proved commission of the offences by the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and acquitted, accused No.2. It acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 326 and sentenced accused No.1 to imprisonment as stated above. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9236 CRL.A No. 100016 of 2017 3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused No.1 is before this Court. 4. i) Learned counsel for the accused No.1/appellant submitted that there was a counter case where the father of the accused was shot down by P.W.3 and it was in retaliation and to protect himself and his family that the accused had to use minimum force against the accused in counter case in S.C.No.18/2010. He submits that the father of the accused No.1 was shot dead in the backyard of his house, while the mother of the accused No.1 was also injured. He contends that accused No.1 in order to protect himself as well as his other family members, attacked the injured with an axe which he was using to chop firewood. Therefore, he contends that the injury caused on PW.3 happened when accused No.1 tried to protect himself and therefore, is not an offence and is an exception. He also contends that the evidence of P.W.1 shows that the father of the accused was shot in front of the house of P.W.3 while in the counter-case, it was clear that the father of the accused was found dead in the backyard of his house. Therefore, he - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9236 CRL.A No. 100016 of 2017 contends that the plea of self-defence by the accused was justified. ii) He submitted that P.W.1, in her cross-examination, admitted that her husband had fired one round from his double barrel gun. He submitted that even as per the evidence of P.W.1, the incident happened in the backyard of the house of the accused. He, therefore, submitted that it was P.W.3 who came to the house of the accused No.1 and shot down the father of the accused and injured the mother of the accused No.1. Therefore, he contends that the accused had used the axe which he earlier used to chop firewood to protect himself. Therefore, he contends that the judgment of the Trial Court holding that the prosecution had proved the commission of the offence by the accused No.1 is perverse and calls for interference. iii) He also submitted that P.W.2 also deposed that she, her father, and P.W.1 who were chased by the accused No.1, entered their house and that her father took out a gun and fired it to threaten the accused No.1 and his father. However, the father of the accused No.1 came in the middle - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9236 CRL.A No. 100016 of 2017 and the bullet entered his chest. The learned counsel, therefore, contends that as per the sketch prepared in counter- case S.C. No.18/2010, the incident happened in the backyard of house of accused No.1, but the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 showed that the incident happened in front of house of P.W.3. He therefore, contends that the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 was not believable and the Trial Court committed an error relying upon the evidence to hand down a conviction. He submitted that even P.W.3 the father of the complainant also stated that when he tried to protect himself by firing a double barrel gun, the father of the accused No.1 came in between and was shot. He submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3, if taken into consideration and compared with the evidence adduced in the counter-case in S.C. No.18/2010, the prosecution had failed to prove the commission of offence under Section 324 of IPC. He, therefore, prays that the impugned conviction of the appellant/accused be set at naught. 5. Per contra, the Additional Government Advocate submitted that the respondent-Police was slack in conducting an investigation even though, as a cognizable offence was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9236 CRL.A No. 100016 of 2017 made out. However, they had filed a false ‘B’ report. He submits that the ‘B’ Report was challenged before this Court and the Court after recording the sworn statement of the injured victims, took cognizance of the offence. He contends that Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 established the wounds inflicted on P.W.2 and P.W.3. He submits that the wounds were inflicted on the back of the neck and were grievous in nature and therefore, the Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record had rightly convicted the accused for the said offences. He therefore, prays that the conviction of the accused be upheld. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as the leaned Additional Government Advocate. I have also perused the record of the Trial Court as well as the judgment. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, Whether, there was sufficient evidence to convict the accused for an offence under Section 324 of IPC?. 7. The incident in question happened on 11.10.2009 at 6.30 p.m. in the backyard of the house of the complainant. In - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9236 CRL.A No. 100016 of 2017 the said incident, the father of the accused No.1 suffered gunshots from a double-barrel gun owned by P.W.3 for which he was charged and convicted in S.C.No.18/2010. An appeal was filed before this Court in Crl.A. No.100026/2017. However, during the pendency of the appeal, he died and therefore, the appeal was abated. Be that as it may, it appears from the records in S.C. No.18/2010 that the incident happened in the backyard of the house of the deceased father of the accused and that he had suffered bullets wounds from a gun fired by P.W.3. Contrarily, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 gave a different picture inasmuch as P.W.1 and P.W.2 claimed that it was the accused No.1 who assaulted P.W.2 and P.W.3 and that, in order to protect themselves, they ran into their house and tried to bolt themselves in, but the accused tried to barge into the house. It was their statement that P.W.3 pulled out a double-barrel gun and fired and the father of the accused came in between and died due to the bullet injuries. If this was true, then the body of the father of accused No.1 must have been found in front of the house of PW.3. However, this does not match with the sketch at Ex.P.13 in S.C.No.18/2010 as it was stated therein that the father of accused No.1 was found dead - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9236 CRL.A No. 100016 of 2017 in the backyard of his house. Therefore, it is doubtful whether the incident happened in front of the house of P.W.3 or in the backyard of the house of the accused. If that be so, the possibility that the accused No.1 had inflicted injuries on P.W.2 and P.W.3 in self-defence, is a plausible defence that merits consideration. It is also doubtful as to who was the aggressor in the incident which resulted in the death of father of the accused and injuries on P.W.2 and P.W.3. ii) Having regard to the fact that the father of the accused had died in the incident, and the mother of the accused also had received injuries, the accused in the present case is entitled to benefit of doubt that he was not the aggressor and that he was not responsible for the incident. This apart, M.O.No.4 was the axe which was allegedly used by the accused No.1 to inflict injuries on P.Ws.2 and 3. The axe was not subject to forensic examination by forensic expert for blood stains and to ascertain whether the said axe was used in the commission of the alleged offence. In that view of the matter, the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9236 CRL.A No. 100016 of 2017 Section 324 of IPC was not warranted. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 09.12.2016, passed in S.C. No.213/2012 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi, is hereby set aside. The accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and is ordered to be set free. Office is directed to send the Trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment for further needful action. Office is also directed to return the M.Os.1 to 6 to the Trial Court in S.C.No.18/2010. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused No.1/appellant stand discharged. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0