- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18357 CRL.A No. 993 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 993 OF 2019 (A) BETWEEN: SHAILESH S SHETTY S/O LATE SHEKAR R SHET Y AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.SIDDARTHA ENCLAVE CHANTHARU VILLAGE UDUPI - 576 213. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K. PRASAD HEGDE.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LAXMINARAYANA SHETTY S/O SHIVARAMA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEAWRS R/AT FLAT NO.403, SHREYAS APARTMENT, BRAHMAVARA, CHANTHARU VILALGE UDUPI TALUK- 576213. 2. BALAKRISHNA KUNDAR S/O APPU KUNDAR AGED ABOUT 48 YELARS R/AT KUNDAR POULTRY FARM, YEDTHADI VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK - 576 21ST0. 3. STATE BY BRAHMAVARA POLICE, UDUPI, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, BANGALORE 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R3) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18357 CRL.A No. 993 of 2019 THIS CRL.A FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2/RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 DATED 02.03.2019, PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT UDUPI IN C.C.NO.1918/2013, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341,506,323 R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT This is an appeal by the complainant-Victim, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 02.03.2019 passed in C.C.No.1918/2013 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), by which accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506, 323 R/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.08.2013 at about 22.00 hours, accused Nos.1 and 2, in furtherance to their common intention of committing offence, near Ashraya Hotel situated at Varambally Village, Brahmavara of Udupi District, had held the hands of the complainant-victim, wrongfully restraining him from moving further and threatened him of dire - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18357 CRL.A No. 993 of 2019 consequences and also assaulted him with hands on his head, forehead, left hand shoulder. Accused No.2 assaulted him on his stomach, kicked on the left leg and caused simple injuries. Based on the said information, a case in Crime No.230/2013 was registered. Accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein voluntarily appeared before the Court and was enlarged on bail. 3. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and charges were framed. Accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Prosecution examined eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and marked six documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. 5. The statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, where the incriminating evidence brought against them has been denied. 6. The trial Court framed the following points for its consideration: '' 1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 18-8-2013 at about 22.00 hours the accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention to commit an offence, near Ashraya hotel, situated at Varambally village, Brahmavara of Udupi taluk, the accused No.1 by holding the hand of CW1 wrongfully restrained him from moving further - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18357 CRL.A No. 993 of 2019 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 341 r/w. 34 of IPC? 2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused No.1 gave life threat to CWI by saying that he will cut him and thereby committed an offence punishable u /s 506 r/w. 34 of IPC? 3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused No.1 assaulted him with hands on his head, forehead, left hand shoulder and then accused No.2 assaulted on the stomach of CWI and kicked on the left leg foot of CW1 and caused simple injury to CWI and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 323 r/w. 34 of IPC? 4. What order?'' 7. On appreciation of the evidence, point Nos.1 to 3 is held in the negative and consequently, passed the impugned order. 8. Learned counsel for the victim-appellant submits that the trial Court has failed to rely upon the deposition of complainant/victim, who has examined himself as PW1, who is also injured witness. That he has spoken in detail about the assault and injury caused by the accused persons on the forehead and the other parts of the body. He further submits that PW5-Dr. Ullas Shetty, who examined victim-appellant has supported the case of prosecution. That mahazar witness, PW7- Shivaji Sooda has also supported the case of prosecution. Though the other witnesses have not supported the case of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18357 CRL.A No. 993 of 2019 prosecution, merely because of some discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 during the cross-examination, the trial Court ought not to have discarded the entire case of the prosecution. Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeal. 9. Heard and perused the records.. 10. PW.1 in his deposition has stated that while he was standing in front of Ashraya Hotel situated, at Varambally Village, accused Nos.1 and 2-respondents herein came and voluntarily restrained him from moving further. Accused No.1 held his hand and threatened him with dire consequences and assaulted him on his forehead. Accused No.2 assaulted him on his stomach and kicked him. Both the accused Nos.1 and 2 left the spot. The trial Court while appreciating the evidence of PW1, who is injured witness being conscious of the veracity of his deposition, at paragraph No.16 of its judgment has held as under: '' 16. Since PW1 is the injured witness and also the first informant to the police, his evidence requires to be appreciated carefully. Moreover the criminal law has been set into motion by the police on the basis of first information given by PW1 as per Ex.P1. Therefore prosecution needs Ex.P1 to be proved according to law. Though during the chief examination he has deposed in accordance with the Ex.P1, but during the cross- examination he has deposed totally contradictory to the version of chief examination. According to the prosecution accused - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18357 CRL.A No. 993 of 2019 persons wrong fully restrained PW1, threatened him in dire consequence besides assaulting him with hand and leg. But during the cross. examination PWI stated that accused persons entered into the hotel and directly started to assault him without asking anything. According to the PW1 he has sustained bleeding injuries and there were blood stained marks in his shirts and some time after he fell unconscious. But PWS doctor who has treated PW1 has not stated anything regarding the bleeding injuries and unconscious of PW1. Even there is no reference in the wound certificate regarding the bleeding injuries as stated by PW1. It appears that PW1 trying to exaggerate his version only to see the conviction of accused persons by the hand of this court. Moreover PW1 has not stated any specific enmity between himself and accused No.1 which leads to the alleged incident, except stating that accused No.1 was working under him when he was working in foreign country, because of said enmity he assaulted him. The said reasons seems to be very unusual one. Therefore, the evidence of this witness is not consistent with Ex.P1. As such the evidence of this witness is not useful for the prosecution and it does not inspire the confidence of court to believe. The next eye witness to the incident is CW2/PW2. But he has stated that he has not seen the alleged incident. Therefore his evidence is also not useful for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons.'' 11. It is clear that, PW1 has not whispered anything whatsoever regarding the motive behind the attack by the accused Nos.1 and 2. In the absence of any allegations or evidence with regard to mensrea, the consequence of assault by the accused persons cannot be countenanced. Further from the deposition of PW1, the trial Court has found that he has exaggerated the nature of injuries which were not either found in the wound certificate or in the deposition of PW5-Doctor. 12. The trial Court has taken note of the deposition of PW5-Doctor at paragraph No.13, which read as under: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18357 CRL.A No. 993 of 2019 '' 13. CW6 Dr. Ullas Shetty examined as PW5. He deposed that since 5 years he is working as doctor at Pranav hospital, Brahmavara. On 18-8-2013 at about 10.30 p.m. when he was on duty, one Shailesh S. Shetty came with a history assault injury. On examination of said Shailesh, he found 4 x 0.5 lacerated wound on the middle forehead, 4 x 3 cm. Stamped wound on the middle of left shoulder, 7 x 4 cm. Stamped wound on the middle of stomach. He opined that, all the said injuries are simple in nature and the same are fresh injuries and they may be caused due to the blunt weapon and they may be caused due to assault by hand. He issued wound certificate, which is marked as Ex.P5 and he signed the same as Ex.P5(a). During the cross examination he has admitted the suggested that the wounds shown in Ex.P5 may also happen if a person fell on a rough surface.'' 13. The trial Court has thus found there is no substance worthy of acceptance in the case of the complainant. 14. This Court cannot take any contra view on the same. No grounds are made out for interference. Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6