- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100192 OF 2018 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. BASAPPA S/O. SATAPPA HARIJAN, AGE:27 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE, R/O. G BASAVANKOPPA, TQ:KALAGHATAGI, DIST:DAHRWAD. 2. HANAMANTHAPPA S/O. MUDAKAPPA HARIJAN, AGE:26 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE, R/O. G BASAVANKOPPA, TQ:KALAGHATAGI, DIST:DAHRWAD. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, KALAGHATAGI POLICE STATION, R/BY SPP. HIGH COURT DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. MALA BHUTE, AGA,) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.PC., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRL.APL.NO.30/2018 DATED 27.07.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE ORDER THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) 1. This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 28.02.2018 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaghatagi, convicting and sentencing the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323,326,504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) confirmed in Crl. Appeal No.30/2018 vide judgment dated 27.07.2018 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad in concurrent charge of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad. 2. Parties to this revision petition are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The facts made out by the prosecution are, that on 27.03.2011 at about 8.00 a.m. in the morning hours at G-Basanakoppa village in front of the house of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 complainant, accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention, picked up a quarrel with the complainant and his mother. Intentionally insulted and abused them in filthy language, assaulted the complainant with hands and club and when CW-1 came to the rescue of his mother, the accused assaulted with club on his head, left hand and caused grievous injuries on his person. So also gave life threat to the complainant and CW-4. Based upon this complaint, a crime was registered and after investigation, police filed charge-sheet against accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323,324,504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 4. The jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. After hearing both side, framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 323,324,504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Accused No.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 5. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses from PWs-1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and M.O.1-stick and closed the prosecution evidence. 6. On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. so as to enable them to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. They denied their complicity in the crime and did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. 7. The learned Trail Court, on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, found the accused guilty for the aforesaid offences and in place of Section 324 of IPC, the accused were convicted under Section 326 of IPC also. After hearing the accused, the learned trial Court pass the order of sentence as under: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 ORDER “Hence accused no.1 and 2 are hereby sentenced to under go Sl for two years and fine of Rs 5,000/- each for the offence punishable u/s 326 r/w Section 34 of IPC, in default of payment of fine amount accused no.1 and 2 shall further undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months. Further accused no.1 and 2 are hereby sentenced to under go SI for three months for the offence punishable u/s 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Further accused no.1 and 2 are hereby sentenced to under go SI for six months for the offence punishable u/s 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Further accused no.1 and 2 are hereby sentenced to under go Sl for six months for the offence punishable u/s 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Acting U/s. 357(3) of Cr.P.C out of the fine amount Rs.5,000/-fis ordered to be paid as compensation to the injured CW1 upon his application. All the sentence shall run concurrently.” 8. This judgment of conviction order of sentence passed by the trial Court was challenged by the accused persons by preferring Crl.Appeal No.30/2018 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad. The learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 Dharwad, who was in concurrent charge of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, on hearing arguments and on reassessment of the evidence confirmed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 27.07.2018. Now, the revision petition is filed before this Court challenging the judgments of the Courts below. 9. Learned counsel Sri.R.H.Angadi appearing for the petitioners/accused would submit that, though the prosecution examined the injured and other witnesses, all are relations except the police officer. He would submit that, even the very offence so alleged against accused is not proved in accordance with law. He would submit that evidence of the witnesses is quite contrary to the contents of the wound certificate and the other documents. The very timing of the alleged offence is completely changed by the witnesses in this case. He submits that, accused Nos.1 and 2 and the complainant families are relatives inter se. There exists civil dispute between both of them. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 Because of that, a false complaint has been registered against these accused persons by the complainant so as to have an unlawful gain. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the accused, took me through various evidence as well as documents and submits that in view of the grounds urged in the revision petition as well as inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. He would submit that, both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and hence, he prays to allow this revision petition and set-aside the impugned judgments. 10. As against his submission Smt.Mala Bhute- learned Additional Government Advocate with all vehemence submits that, it is a case of assault. Injured has supported the case of prosecution so also his mother. The scene of offence panchanama is duly proved in accordance with law. She would submit that, as the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court have rightly appreciated the evidence placed on record, it can never be - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 stated that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. In view of the proper appreciation of the evidence by the Courts below, this Court being the revisional Court cannot interfere into the impugned judgments of the Courts below. In support of her submission the learned AGA relied upon the evidence of Doctor as well as the eye-witnesses so also the injured. She prays to dismiss the revision petition. 11. In view of the rival submissions of both side, the points that would arise for my consideration are: (i) Whether the learned trial Court, as well as Frist Appellate Court have committed any error in appreciating the evidence in coming to the conclusion that, the accused are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323,326,504,506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. (ii) If so, whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the Courts below require interference by this Court. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 12. It is a case of assault. It is specifically alleged by the prosecution, that on 27.03.2011 at 8.00 a.m. in the morning hours, these accused No.1 and 2 herein in furtherance of their common intention at G-Basanakoppa village in front of the house of the complainant Kallappa, picked up a quarrel with mother of the complainant Susheela and started abusing them in filthy language. When the complainant went to rescue his mother, the accused assaulted him on his head and left hand and caused him injuries. They also gave a life threat to him. Therefore, it is alleged that, the accused are guilty of the offences under Sections 323,324,504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 13. So far as documentary evidence is concerned, prosecution relies upon the contents of Ex.P-1 to P-4 being the complaint, panchanama, wound certificate and FIR. The contents of these documents do suggest about filing of a complaint and setting the criminal law in motion, so - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 also medical examination of the complainant, who had suffered the injuries. 14. PW-1 being the complainant has come before the trial Court and deposed in line with the contents of the complaint in his evidence on oath. According to him, at 8.00 on that day, accused Nos.1 and 2 came in front of their house and started abusing in filthy language. Accused No.1 assaulted him on his head and back. About assaulting him on his back, there is no mention in the complaint allegations. According to him, he fell down, because of that his hand was fractured. There is no recital with regard to he falling on the ground and sustaining of the fracture. For the first time, this PW-1 speaks all these aspects in examination-in-chief without any allegations in the complaint. He also speaks about the life threat. He identifies M.O. No.1 a stick, which was alleged to have been used by accused No.1 in assaulting him. According to him, he was in the hospital for a period of 25 days as inpatient. To prove the said aspect, except the wound - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 certificate Ex.P-3, no other document is produced by the prosecution to show that really the complainant PW-1 was in the hospital for a 25 days continuously and took a treatment as an inpatient. In the cross-examination he states that, he does not know to read and write. According to him it is Police who wrote the complaint Ex.P-1. But he knows the contents of the complaint as he has given the information to write the complaint. He states that to prove that, he is the owner of the property he has filed a civil suit which is still pending. But he does not know the civil suit number. He denies that he is speaking falsehood before the Court. 15. PW-2-Susheela Harijan is none other than the mother of complainant. According to her, in the year 2011, there was a panchayat conducted in between the accused persons and the complainant’s family. At that time, her husband's brother Satappa Harijan demanded to partition the property. It was PW-2 and her family members who told that they are going to give money to him. But he - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 forced to give a property towards his share from the property of his ancestors. She says, at about 8.00 a.m. on that day, accused came and abused him in filthy language. She further states that accused No.1 came and assaulted his son PW-1 on his head and back. He fell down and sustained injuries. Accused No.2 also assaulted on his head. Thus PW-2 evidence shows that, it is accused No.1 assaulted PW-1 so also accused No.2 assaulted him. But PW-1’s evidence is very much silent about the assault by accused No.2 on him. Even she states that, she was also assaulted by them. She went to the hospital and took treatment. But wound certificate about treatment taken by her is not produced before the Court. She says accused assaulted with stone and stick, but, the said stone is not produced before the Court which is alleged to have been used by the accused to commit the offence. According to her, PW-1 took a treatment as an inpatient for 20 days. But PW-1 says that he took a treatment for a period of 25 days. According to her, by using a M.O.-1 there was a fracture to his hand. But PW-1 says that, by falling on the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 ground, there was fracture to his hand. Except denial in the cross-examination nothing worth is brought on record. 16. PW-3 Channabasappa Honnapur is none else than the pancha to Ex.P.-2. He speaks about his presence stating that about 4 years back in between 1.30 p.m. and 2.00 p.m. police came and conducted the panchanama and seized the M.O.-1. With regard to the seizure of the same, except denial nothing is elicited from him. He states that Police did not read over the said panchanama to him. He was not present when the incident took place. He knows about the boundaries of the scene of offence. Therefore, the evidence of the PW-3 has to be accepted to the extent that in his presence under Ex.P.2, M.O.1 was seized. PW-2 states that even the accused assaulted her and her son by using stone. But there is no mention with regard of seizure of the stone under Ex.P.2. 17. PW-4 - Manjunath Dharwad states that, there was a galata and he is signatory to Ex.P-2 as a panch. He - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 identifies M.O.-1 the stick. According to him there was a galata in between family of the complainant and accused persons. His evidence can be accepted to the extent of his presence when the panchanama was conducted, but, he never says about seizure of stone from the said scene of offence as spoken to by PW-2. According to him, there is a good relationship in between himself and PW-1 and 2, perhaps that must have prompted him to give evidence against the accused persons. 18. PW-5 – Shettavva Harijan is stated to be an eye-witness for the said incident. In categorical terms, she states that galata took place at 5.00 am on that day. At that time accused assaulted CW-4. When CW-1 came to rescue, there was assault on him and there was a fracture. According to her CW-1 fell down and lost his consciousness. PW-1 and 2 never says that, after falling, complainant PW-1, lost his consciousness. Therefore, we find a very inconsistent evidence with regard to the very incident by this PWs-1,2 and 5. PW-5 has been - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 cross-examined by the defence. There is a denial of all the suggestions directed. But, in examination-in-chief itself, she has spoken inconsistent evidence with that of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and they say that, the incident has taken place at 8.00 a.m. in the morning, but PW-5 states that it was at 5.00 am on that day. PW-6 Yallappa Harijan also has come before the trial Court and deposed, that about 4 years back incident took place at 12.00 noon in the morning. He never says that the said incident has taken place either at 5.00 a.m. or at 8.00 a.m. as stated by PW-1,2 and 5. There was a galata according to him. That means PW-6-Yallappa Harijan also has a changed the time of offence. He has been declared as a hostile witness. He admits in the cross-examination directed by the prosecution that, accused No.1 gave a life threat to complainant and his mother. By changing the time of incident, this PW-6 has not supported prosecution in material particulars. Except denial, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination, but his cross-examination completely changes the time of commission offence. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 19. PW-7-Dr.Savita H.M. is a doctor, who has issued Ex.P-3 wound certificate and noticed the fracture of his left hand, but PW-1 says that, he sustained a fracture to his wrist. Therefore, I find an inconsistent evidence with regard to the very fracture being sustained by this PW-1 in the alleged incident. No doubt, this PW-7 is not cross- examined. But the other evidence placed on record through PW-1,2 and 5 is quite inconsistent and discrepancies with regard of the very incident. 20. PW-8 Gangappa Ganachari is a Police Officer, who has conducted the panchanama on receipt of the complaint and prepared the panchanama as per Ex.P.2. In all criminal cases the Police Officers are the supervisors of the investigation. Panchas are the authors of the panchanama. To the extent of he conducting the panchanama, the evidence of this PW-8 is to be accepted. To that extent, I believe the evidence of this PW-8. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 21. On overall reading of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, PW-1,2 and 5 are relatives inter se. There exists civil dispute in between the family of the complainant and the accused persons. We find a complete change of the time with regard of the occurrence of the said incident of assault on the person of PW-1 and 3, so also the injuries are also not proved in accordance with law. Though the Doctor says that, the injured has suffered the fracture on noticing the X-ray. The same is not produced before the Court to show the said fracture being sustained by the PW-1. It is fatal to the case of the prosecution. To show that, PW-1 has really took a treatment for a period of 25 days, as stated no evidence is placed on record by the prosecution. To attract the provisions of Section 326 of IPC, the prosecution is under obligation to prove that, really PW-1 had sustained grievous injuries as defined under Section 320 of IPC. No such evidence is placed on record. But the trial Court though framed the charges under Section 324 of IPC, has raised a point for consideration under Section 326 of IPC - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 putting burden on the prosecution. When there is alteration of charge by the trial Magistrate, it is a bounden duty of the said Court to give an opportunity to both the sides to hear on the alteration of charge and then proceed further. But in this case, the Magistrate has not taken such steps. It is also fatal to the case of prosecution. The prosecution also has not taken any steps regarding the same. 22. Thus, in view of the inconsistent, discrepant evidence adduced by the prosecution, it cannot be stated that, the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies, discrepancies so arise in the case of prosecution have not been properly explained. There is no proper corroborative evidence. PW-1,2 and 5 are relatives. No doubt the evidence of the sole injured witness is sufficient as observed by the trial Court to base the conviction, but when such a evidence is placed on record which is a full of discrepancies and inconsistencies, it really requires - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 corroboration. Unless corroborative evidence is adduced by the prosecution, it cannot be stated that, the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, there exists civil dispute, perhaps that must have made the complainant to file a complaint. This possibility cannot be ruled out. Hence, there arises a doubt in the case of prosecution and that benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused persons. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. In view of my discussion made above, the accused are entitled for acquittal by giving benefit of doubt. 23. Resultantly, I pass a following: ORDER (i) The Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) Consequentially, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2018 in CC No.236/2011 passed by the Civil - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 Judge and JMFC Court, Kalaghatagi, confirmed in Crl.Appeal No.30/2018 vide judgment dated 27.07.2018 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in concurrent charge of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, are hereby set-aside. (iii) Accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 323, 326, 504 and 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. (iv) Their bail bonds stand cancelled. They are set at liberty. (v) Registry is directed to send the operative portion of this order to the Trial Court and First Appellate Court forthwith through mail. (vi) Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records along with the copy of this judgment. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2078 CRL.RP No. 100192 of 2018 (vii) The fine amount paid, if any, shall be returned to the accused Nos.1 and 2 forthwith digitally. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE RHR/CT-VG LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 27