- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:547 CRL.RP No. 100492 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100492 OF 2022 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, MUNDGOD POLICE STATION, UTTARA KANNADA, THROUGH ADDL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. … PETITIONER (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) AND: 1. MARUTI GANGAPPA CHIGAPPANAVAR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RO. ANDALAGI, TQ. MUNDGOD. 2. TAMMANNA LAXMAN BENDIGERI AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RO. ANDALAGI, TQ. MUNDGOD. 3. RAMMANNA GANGAPPA CHIGAPPANAVAR AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RO. ANDALAGI, TQ. MUNDGOD. 4. VITTAL SHIVAJI CHIGAPPANAVAR AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RO. ANDALAGI, TQ. MUNDGOD. 5. ARJUN GANAPATI BENDIGETI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RO. ANDALAGI, TQ. MUNDGOD. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.21 14:32:33 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:547 CRL.RP No. 100492 of 2022 6. DHARMANNA MARIYAPPA SITAMMANAVAR AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RO. ANDALAGI, TQ. MUNDGOD. 7. LAVA RAMANNA CHIGAPPANAVAR AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RO. ANDALAGI, TQ. MUNDGOD. 8. ASHOK YALLAPPA SAMBAJI AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RO. ANDALAGI, TQ. MUNDGOD. … RESPONDENTS [BY SRI PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R8 (ABSENT)] THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM LOWER APPELLATE COURT NAMELY 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5019/2019 AND ALSO FROM SENIOR JMFC MUNDGOD IN CC NO.103/2014 DATED 27.03.2019 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.09.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5019/2019 AND IN CC NO. 103/2014 DATED 27.03.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR JMFC, MUNDAGOD AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 143, 147, 323, 353, 332, 224, 427 R/W 149 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by State aggrieved by judgment dated 30.09.2021 passed by 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, U.K., Karwar sitting at Sirsi in Criminal Appeal no.5019/2019 and judgment dated 27.03.2019 in CC.no.103/2014 by Senior JMFC., Mundgod. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:547 CRL.RP No. 100492 of 2022 2. Heard Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for petitioner. 3. Brief facts as stated are, complaint was filed by Basavaraj Maruti Naik, Forest Guard, Mundgod Division, Kalkeri, alleging that at 8:00 pm on 24.03.2013, information was received about unknown person roaming with rifle for hunting, in F.Sy.no.20 of Andalagi Forest. On reaching spot with Venkatesh Karadgi, Forest Guard and Banalli, they found a person carrying rifle in his hand. On enquiry, he revealed his name was Ramanna Gangappa Chigappanavar. While bringing him back to their office for further action, when they reached village, said Ramanna attempted to escape. He called other accused for help, who formed unlawful assembly and assaulted complainant, though he was in his uniform and while on duty. They assaulted with hands inflicting injuries, tore his uniform and damaged his motorcycle. It was alleged that accused had thereby assisted accused to escape and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 353, 332, 224, 427 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, for short). Same was registered as Crime no.41/2013. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:547 CRL.RP No. 100492 of 2022 4. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in CC.no.103/2014. Charges were framed. On denial, trial was held. While, prosecution examined 15 witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P22 and MOs.1 and 2. On other hand, accused no.3 was examined as DW.1 and an independent witness examined as DW.2. But, without proper appreciation, trial Court acquitted accused no.1 to 8 of all charges. Aggrieved, Criminal Appeal no.501/2019 was filed. But same was dismissed, leading to this petition. 5. It was submitted, complainant was assaulted while he was discharging official duty. It was submitted, accused no.1 was intercepted in forest area while he was carrying rifle for hunting. While he was being taken to office for further action, accused no.1 with help of other accused escaped and in process, accused had inflicted injuries and caused damage to his motorcycle. It was submitted, though PWs.2, 3 and 5 – pancha witnesses, PWs.6, 7 and 11 – eye-witnesses, did not support prosecution; PW.1 – complainant, PW.4 – pancha witness, PWs.8 to 10 – eye-witnesses and other official witnesses supported prosecution. Deposition of said witnesses would duly establish charges. However, without proper - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:547 CRL.RP No. 100492 of 2022 consideration, both Courts acquitted accused. It was submitted, oral evidence was corroborated by documentary evidence Medical Examination Report - Ex.P13 and MOs.1 and 2 which had blood stains. 6. It was submitted, PW.1 – complainant had duly deposed in terms of complaint. His deposition was corroborated by PW.4 - pancha-witness to seizure mahazar, who identified torn uniform and damaged motorcycle. Likewise, PWs.8 to 10 eye-witnesses also duly supported prosecution case. Though nothing material was elicited from them during cross- examination so as to discredit their deposition, trial Court as well as Appellate Court acquitted accused. 7. It was submitted, though statements were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, accused failed to offer any satisfactory explanation about incriminating material. 8. It was submitted, reason assigned by Appellate Court for discarding deposition of PWs.11, 12, 14 and 15 was on ground that incident occurred near house of V.S. Patil of Andalagi village, but PW.12 was stated to be present at spot with pancha-witnesses. Even Appellate Court failed to consider - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:547 CRL.RP No. 100492 of 2022 Wound Certificate and evidence of doctor about injuries sustained by complainant – PW.1. Hence sought interference by allowing revision. 9. None appears for respondents - accused. 10. Perused impugned judgment by trial as well as Appellate Courts and records. 11. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC, against concurrent findings of acquittal of respondents - accused for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 353, 332, 224, 427 read with 149 of IPC. 12. Case of prosecution as per complaint / charge-sheet was that on 24.03.2013, when complainant along with other forest guard went to Kalkeri forest on receipt of information about illegal hunting, they found accused no.1 walking in F.Sy.no.20 carrying a rifle with bullets. And when he was being brought back to office for further action, accused no.1 called for help, when they were in front of MLAs house and that other accused gathered and assaulted complainant inflicted injuries on him, tore his uniform and damaged his motorcycle, while - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:547 CRL.RP No. 100492 of 2022 complainant was performing his duty and was wearing uniform thereby committed offences as alleged. 13. Before trial Court, only complainant - PW.1, pancha-witness – PW.4 and eye-witnesses/forest guards – PWs.8 to 10 supported prosecution case, while, PWs.2 and 3 - pancha-witnesses and PWs.5 to 7 – eye-witnesses turned hostile. 14. While passing judgment, trial Court noted statement of PW.1 that next day after incident, he filed police complaint as suggested by his official superior. It observed spot panchanama was conducted between 10:15 to 11:00 a.m. on 26.03.2013, while panchanama for seizure of MOs was conducted on 25.03.2013 between 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. It also observed that PWs.8 to 10 were Forest Guards who had accompanied complainant. And PW-11 - Doctor had stated nature of injuries suffered by complainant as ‘simple’. Trial Court further noted that accused had examined two persons as defence witnesses. Accused no.3 was examined as DW.1. He deposed that on 24.03.2013 at 8:00 p.m., while he was going towards his lands, he was beaten up by forest guards by - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:547 CRL.RP No. 100492 of 2022 alleging that he was cutting forest trees. Due to which he sustained injuries for which he received treatment as in-patient for three days. It also referred to his further statement that Sri V.S. Patil – MLA had thereafter intervened and got matter settled by directing Forest Guards to pay Rs.5,000/- to accused no.1 for causing grievous injuries. He further stated that instead of complying, false complaint was filed. Trial Court observed that deposition of DW-2 was similar and corroborated DW-1. 15. Reason assigned by trial Court for acquittal was that, complainant – PW.1 deposed about accused causing damage to head-light dome and petrol tank of his motorcycle, whereas during cross-examination, suggestions were made about damage being caused to head-light, mud-guard, seat cover and tail-lamp assembly etc as well. It also noted that PW.1 stated that seizure panchanama for recovery of his uniform was conducted between 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. on 25.03.2013, which was noted by it to be contradicting records and giving rise to reasonable doubt. It further observed, due to PWs.2 and 3 turning hostile, Ex.P3 panchanama could not be relied as evidence. It further observed, even PW.4 admitted he - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:547 CRL.RP No. 100492 of 2022 was unaware of contents of Ex.P3, therefore, prosecution had failed to prove Ex.P3. 16. It further observed, unlike PW.1 who deposed about damage caused to dome and tank of motorcycle, PWs.8 to 10 had failed to mention particulars, which also gave rise to doubt. It thereafter referred to statement of PW.11 - medical officer that complainant had come to him at 4:00 p.m. on 25.03.2013, for treatment of injuries sustained in assault by accused on 24.03.2013 at 10:30 p.m., and had admitted that injuries noted by him in Ex.P13 could be caused due to fall. It lastly noted there was delay in filing of complaint, substantiating reasonable doubt about commission of offence by accused. On said grounds, it acquitted accused. 17. In appeal, Appellate Court on independent re- assessment concurred with findings by assigning detailed reasons. Offences alleged against accused are mainly unlawful assembly, rioting, voluntarily causing hurt, obstructing public servant from performing his duty and escaping from apprehension. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:547 CRL.RP No. 100492 of 2022 18. As noted above, there is delay in filing complaint. Incident allegedly occurred at 10:00 pm on 24.03.2013. But Complaint is filed at 7:30 p.m., on 25.03.2013. However, as per Complainant – PW.1 himself, Ex.P3 was drawn on between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. on 25.03.2013, which would be even prior to filing of complaint. Interestingly, PW.11 – medical officer, deposed that he examined complainant for injuries at 4:00 p.m. on 25.03.2013, which would contradict prosecution case. Moreover, in furtherance of suggesting to PW.1 that injuries were caused by his falling down, it is elicited from PW.11 that injuries noted in Ex.P13 could be caused by falling down. 19. Further, while, PWs.2 and 3 – pancha witnesses turned hostile, remaining pancha-witness examined – PW.4 admitted, he was unaware of contents of Ex.P3 and that it he was shown uniform in Police Station. Apart from above, there are contradictions noted about damages caused to motorcycle and prosecution has also failed to evaluate damage, which would be required to establish offence under Section 427 of IPC. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:547 CRL.RP No. 100492 of 2022 20. Though Hon’ble Supreme Court has in case of Tahir v. State (Delhi), reported in (1996) 3 SCC 338, held order of conviction could be based only on statement of official witnesses, if it is consistent and found to be cogent, reliable and credible, in instant case, trial Court has noted various inconsistencies between evidence of PW.1 and PWs.8 to 10. Therefore, both Courts would be justified in extending benefit of doubt and acquitting accused. 21. Consequently, there would be no scope for interference. Hence following: ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE EM/GRD LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 32