- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2572 CRL.A No. 200010 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200010 OF 2020 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. MAHADEVI W/O PARVATAPPA MALAGATI, AGE: 65 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O BALABATTI VILLAGE, TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI. 2. SHARANAMMA W/O BASAVARAJ JEWARGI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O BALABATTI VILLAGE, TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI. 3. DHANAMMA W/O CHANDRAKANTH, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O BALABATTI VILLAGE, TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI. 4. GURANNA S/O PARVATAPPA MALAGATI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O BALABATTI VILLAGE, TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585310. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI MAHANTESH H. DESAI, ADVOCATE; THE APPEAL AS AGAINST APPELLANT NO.1 STANDS ABATED) Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2572 CRL.A No. 200010 of 2020 AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH YEDRAMI P. S. TQ. JEWEARGI, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI IN S.C.NO.118/2016 DATED 17.01.2020 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS OF THE CHARGE LEVELED AGAINST THEM. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 11.03.2025, AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) This appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 17.01.2020 in Sessions Case No.118/2016 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, wherein the accused Nos.2 to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2572 CRL.A No. 200010 of 2020 4 have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, whereas accused No.1 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 307 of IPC. However, accused Nos.2 to 4 have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 109 of IPC. 2. Factual matrix of the case are as under: That on 24.06.2024 at about 02-30 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention, picked up quarrel with C.W.1 intentionally and insulted her by abusing in a filthy language and also assaulted her with hands. The said quarrel has been pacified by C.W.8 to C.W.10. On the same day at about 03-30 p.m., when C.W.1 went to the provisional store and was coming back, she learnt that accused No.1 was going out of her house. C.W.1 did not aware as to why she had come to her house. However, C.W.1 served the food to C.W.4 to C.W.7 and they had lunch on that day. After having lunch, all the persons have started vomiting and also it is found that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2572 CRL.A No. 200010 of 2020 food was mixed with poison. Having suspected the foul play of accused No.1, a complaint came to be registered against all the accused. The respondent/police have registered the case, conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 109 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and got marked 11 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.11 and also identified two material objects as M.O.1 and M.O.2. 4. Heard Sri Mahantesh H. Desai, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Gopalkrishna B. Yadav, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence of the interested - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2572 CRL.A No. 200010 of 2020 witnesses ought to have been considered properly by the Trial Court, as they are interested witnesses. 6. It is further submitted that there is a delay in lodging the complaint. The said delay has not been explained properly and that has been considered without proper appreciation. Even though P.W.1 has not stated as on the date of the incident, she saw accused No.1 coming out of her house, the said fact was stated in her further statement which was recorded on 26.06.2024. The said delay in giving the information to the respondent/police would be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 7. It is further submitted that the entire case is based on the evidence of P.W.1. Her evidence ought not to have been considered for the reason that there was a civil dispute existed between the appellants and the husband of the complainant. There is a possibility of implicating the appellants in a false case, which cannot be ruled out. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2572 CRL.A No. 200010 of 2020 8. It is further submitted that the Trial Court committed an error in not appreciating the evidence properly. Consequently, the impugned judgment is passed which is required to be set aside. 9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that the accused are the family members of the complainant and there was a civil dispute existed between these two families. It is also true that there was a quarrel which had taken place on the same day. In the said incident, the complainant was assaulted by the accused and after pacifying the quarrel, she went to bring the ration from grocery shop. While coming back, she noticed that accused No.1 was coming out of her house in a hurried manner. These are all the facts and circumstances which lead to come to the conclusion or draw inference that accused No.1 and others have committed the offences as stated supra. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the findings of the Trial Court. Hence, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2572 CRL.A No. 200010 of 2020 interference with the said findings not necessary. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Court below in recording the conviction, it is appropriate to re-appreciate the evidence of all the witnesses to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction is proper or not. 11. P.W.1 is the complainant. She supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.2 to P.W.5 are the children of complainant, they supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.6 acted as a panch witness and he supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.7 is the neighbor of the accused. He stated that four and half years ago, he heard the sound of quarrel near the house of P.W.1 and he went there along with C.W.10 and saw that accused Nos.1 to 4 were assaulting P.W.1 with their hands. P.W.8 Shivanna stated that four and a half years ago, at about 03-45 p.m. C.W.1 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2572 CRL.A No. 200010 of 2020 and C.W.4 to C.W.7 were started vomiting. Immediately, all of them were shifted to the hospital for treatment and he learnt that someone might have mixed the poison with the food. He was treated as partly hostile. P.W.9 has also turned hostile. P.W.10 is the Assistant Director of FSL, Kalaburagi. He deposed that on 16.07.2014, he had received one sealed article. He conducted the examination and detected the presence of pyrethroid insecticide in the article. The said FSL report has been marked as Ex.P.5. P.W.11 the CPI stated to have conducted the part of the investigation and P.W.12 conducted further investigation and submitted the charge sheet. P.W.13 was working as a doctor and treated the family members. 12. On careful reading of the evidence of all these witnesses, it appears from the record that P.W.1 is not only the complainant, but also, one of the victims of the case. According to her, all the accused persons have assaulted in the morning hours on 24.06.2014. After the incident, she had been to grocery shop to purchase the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2572 CRL.A No. 200010 of 2020 grocery items to her house. While she was coming from the said shop, she noticed that accused No.1 was coming out of her house. Though she made her statement on 26.06.2014, the fact remains that, there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence regarding mixing of poison in the food of which they consumed on the same day. 13. It is needless to say that the evidence of P.W.1 corroborated by the evidence of P.W.10. The scientific officer had stated in his evidence that he conducted examination of the rice which was sent for chemical examination and submitted the report as per Ex.P.5. As per the said report, the rice was mixed with pyrethroid insecticide which is considered as poison. 14. The doctor, who conducted examination of all the victims has opined that the victims have been consumed poisonous food. P.W.7, who is the neighbor and also an independent witness stated that P.W.1 was being assaulted by the appellants in the morning hours and he further stated that on the same day in the evening hours, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2572 CRL.A No. 200010 of 2020 he shifted the all the victims to the hospital, as they stated to have consumed poisonous food and all of them were uncomfortable. 15. Similarly, P.W.10 to P.W.14 have also supported the case of the prosecution in respect of the incident and also the assault of P.W.1 by the appellants. It is needless to say that the evidence of P.W.1 did not state the facts that, the other appellants have conspired with accused No.1 to mix the poison with the food in the house of P.W.1. As such, the Trial Court has rightly assessed the evidence and also rendered the conviction in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. 16. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by the appellants/accused is dismissed. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2572 CRL.A No. 200010 of 2020 (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.01.2020, passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in S.C.No.118/2016 stands confirmed. (iii) The registry is directed to send the records along with this order to the Trial Court forthwith for necessary action. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 CT:PK