- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:555 CRL.A No. 100267 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100267 OF 2015 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. DURGAPPA S/O. KANTEGOUDA MALIGOUDRA AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE NOW NIL, R/O: LINGADAHALLI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PSI, TAVARGERA POLICE STATION, REP. BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374 (2) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 27/11/2015 AND ORDER OF SENTECNE DATED 01/12/2015 PASSED IN SC(AC) NO.102/2012 FOR THE U/S 307 & 324 OF IPC AND SEC 3 (2)(V) OF SC ST ACT 1989 BY THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS & SPECIAL JUDGE AT KOPPAL, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM IN ABOVE MENTIONED CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.22 15:00:40 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:555 CRL.A No. 100267 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘SC and ST Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 02.10.2012, at Lingadahalli village, the complainant (P.W.9), along with his son Devendrappa, went to the land of the accused. After leaving his son to work there, the complainant left to attend to his mason work. In the evening, he returned to fetch his son, who was still working in the field with the accused. The complainant then went to the farmhouse of the accused and began conversing with the accused’s wife, Laxmamma. At that time, the accused approached the complainant and Laxmamma, and, knowing that the complainant belonged to the Valmiki caste (a Scheduled Tribe), intentionally abused him. Subsequently, with the intention of murdering the complainant, the accused assaulted him with an axe on the head, causing grievous injuries. When Laxmamma attempted to intervene, the accused also assaulted her, causing injuries. Hearing the complainant’s screams, his son rushed to the spot and witnessed the accused assaulting his father with the axe. The complainant and Laxmamma were transported to Tavaragera Hospital via a 108 ambulance and later referred to a higher hospital. Upon receiving the Medico-Legal Case (MLC) intimation, the police recorded the complainant’s statement in the presence of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:555 CRL.A No. 100267 of 2015 a doctor, based on which a case was registered against the accused for offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST Act. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST Act. 3. The prosecution, to substantiate its case, examined 12 witnesses (P.Ws.1 to 12) and exhibited documents marked as Exs.P.1 to P.14, along with material objects (M.Os.1 to 3). 4. The accused marked Ex.D.1, being a portion of the statement of P.W.9. 5. The trial court, upon appreciating the evidence on record, held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC. Consequently, it passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, prompting this appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that, apart from the self-serving statement of P.W.9, there is no substantial evidence to establish that the appellant assaulted the complainant with an axe on the head. He further contended that the testimony of P.W.9 is untrustworthy due to contradictions in his statements, particularly regarding the motive for committing the offence. He emphasized that the axe used for the alleged assault was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination, thus failing to conclusively prove the guilt of the appellant. Therefore, it was submitted that the prosecution has not - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:555 CRL.A No. 100267 of 2015 established the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, rendering the judgment and sentence legally unsustainable. 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the wound certificate issued concerning P.W.9, coupled with the testimonies of P.Ws.9 and 10, clearly established that the appellant assaulted P.W.9 with an axe on the head. Accordingly, he argued that the conviction and sentence warrant no interference, seeking dismissal of the appeal. 8. Upon careful consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel and a thorough perusal of the trial court records, the sole point for determination is: “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC?” 9. Ex.P.3 is the complaint filed by P.W.9, alleging that the accused assaulted him on 02.10.2012 with an axe on his head, suspecting an illicit relationship between the complainant and the accused’s wife, Laxmamma. Ex.P.10 is the complainant’s dying declaration made while receiving treatment, wherein he stated that the accused assaulted him with an axe on the head after a dispute over money. However, during his chief examination, P.W.9 testified that the accused assaulted him due to suspicions of an illicit relationship. Contradictions were observed in P.W.9’s complaint, his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., his dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, and his - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:555 CRL.A No. 100267 of 2015 testimony before the trial court, particularly regarding the motive for the assault. 10. The wound certificate (Ex.P.1) issued by P.W.1 (doctor) indicates that P.W.9 sustained a cut lacerated wound measuring 2” x 3” on the head. P.W.1 opined that the injuries were grievous in nature, but the wound certificate does not mention the identity of the assailant. P.W.1, however, testified that the injuries were caused by a sharp weapon, likely an axe. 11. The axe (M.O.1) was reportedly seized from the accused in the presence of panch witnesses (P.Ws.2 and 3), but they turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case. The Investigating Officer (P.W.11) corroborated the recovery of the axe, but the prosecution failed to send the allegedly blood stained axe to the FSL for examination to confirm its use in the offence. 12. In light of the above, while the grievous injuries sustained by P.W.9 were likely caused by an axe, the prosecution has failed to conclusively prove that the injuries were inflicted by the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The contradictions in the complainant’s statements and the lack of forensic evidence weaken the prosecution’s case. It is also noted that the accused was in judicial custody for two-and-a-half months. 13. Considering the above, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Section 326 of the IPC is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:555 CRL.A No. 100267 of 2015 ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The impugned judgment of conviction dated 27.11.2015 and order of sentence dated 01.12.2015 passed by the learned Sessions and Special Judge, at Koppal in Session Case (AC) No.102/2012 is hereby set aside. iii) Appellant/accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 326 of the IPC. iv) Bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32