- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7774 CRL.A No. 577 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 577 OF 2014 (C) BETWEEN: 1. VASU @ VASANTHA KUMARA S/O J.D.SOMAPPA, AGED 49 YEARS, R/AT B.J.MANI COMPOUND, LAKSHMIPURA EXTENSION, SAKELESHAPURA TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573132. APPEAL AGAINST A1 STAND ABATED VIDE ORDER DATED 10.12.2025. 2. HEMANTHA @ HEMANTHAKUMAR S/O J.D.SOMAPPA AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT B.J.MAIN COMPOUND, LAKSHMIPURA EXENSION, SAKELESHAPURA TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573132. 3. RAGHU S/O KUPPE GOWDA, AGED 42 YEARS, R/AT HARIE KUDIGE SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573132. 4. RAMACHANDRA S/O ERAPPA GOWDA AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT HEGGADDE VILLAGE, HANUBALU HOBLI, SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573132. Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7774 CRL.A No. 577 of 2014 APPEAL AGAINST A1 STAND ABATED VIDE ORDER DATED 10.12.2025. 5. RAJAMANIKYA S/O GOPALA GOWDA, AGED 59 YEARS, R/AT HEBBASALA VILLAGE, HALLYMANE, KASABA HOBLI, SAKALAESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573132. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR D., ADVOCATE FOR A2, A3 AND A5; V/O DATED 10.12.2025, APPEAL AGAINST A1 AND A4 STANDS ABATED) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TOWN POLICE SAKALESHPURA HASSAN DISTRICT-573132. …RESPONDENT (SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 7.7.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., HASSAN IN S.C.NO.144/2011 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 R/W 149 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7774 CRL.A No. 577 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan in S.C.No.144/2011 dated 07.07.2014. 2. The parties herein are referred to their rank before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sakaleshpura Town Police has laid a charge sheet against the accused for the commission of offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 4. It is alleged by the prosecution that the complainant is the resident of Hebbasale village and carrying on agricultural activities in his coffee estate in Sy.No.329/2010 measuring 10 acres. There is a dispute between himself and the accused and he has succeeded in one round of litigation. On the date of incident, at about 09.00 a.m., he found four accused and his friends were - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7774 CRL.A No. 577 of 2014 engaged in plucking coffee seeds. When he questioned as to why they are plucking coffee seeds, the accused persons with common object, picked up quarrel with him and assaulted him. Accused No.1 - Vasu has assaulted him with sickle on his head, neck and caused bleeding injuries. Accused No.2 - Hemanth assaulted him with knife on his left forearm. As a result, he sustained fracture of left forearm. The servant of accused Nos.1 and 2 namely Raja Manikya had caught hold of the complainant so as to restrain him from moving about. Raghu chopped off his left thumb and Ramachandra assaulted him on his chest. All the accused had an intention of committing his murder, thereby, committed the alleged offences. 5. After investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The case was registered in C.C.No.70/2010. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was registered as S.C.No.144/2011. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7774 CRL.A No. 577 of 2014 6. Accused appeared before the Trial Court. On hearing the charges, the Trial Court has framed the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 341, 307, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC and same was read over and explained to the accused, having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all 17 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 17, 19 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to 19 and 7 material objects were marked as M.O.Nos.1 to 7. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded (On verification, this Court found that the Trial Court has not properly recorded the answer of the accused, and many of the answers left blank). The accused did not lead any defence evidence. However, during the course of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, two documents were marked as Exs.D.1 and D.2. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7774 CRL.A No. 577 of 2014 8. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC and acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence under Sections 341 r/w 149 IPC. The Trial Court has sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC. Being aggrieved by this Judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 9. The learned Senior counsel Smt.Pramila Nesargi, appearing on behalf of the counsel for the appellants would submit that the impugned Judgment of conviction and order on sentence recorded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge is contrary to law of facts and evidence on record. The reasons assigned by the learned Session Judge while passing the impugned Judgment of conviction and order on sentence are erroneous and as such he has slipped into an error resulting in substantial - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7774 CRL.A No. 577 of 2014 miscarriage of justice. The Trial Court has not observed as to the contradictory statement of eyewitnesses and the entire evidence. In that view of the matter, learned Presiding Officer ought to have disbelieved their evidence and acquitted the appellants. The complaint Ex.P.2 is an afterthought. It clearly shows that complainant is having ill-will against these appellants and has falsely included the appellants in the present case. PW.7 - Uthappa has stated that there is a dispute between the appellants and himself in respect of land, bearing Sy.No.329/2010 measuring 10 acres of coffee estate. This ill-will between the complainant and appellants made him to file a false complaint against these appellants. Ex.P.2 is an afterthought and well planned. The presence of the accused in the place of occurrence had not been spoken by PW.9. 10. The evidence of PW.6 and PW.7 ought to have been ignored by the Trial Court, as they are interested and are inimical towards the accused. The Trial Court only on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7774 CRL.A No. 577 of 2014 the basis of evidence of PW.6 and PW.7, who are inimical towards the accused from three decades has convicted the accused without careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW.6 and PW.7, who are interested witnesses. The Trial Court erred in not considering that in the statement given by PW.7 or in his further statement he has not stated about the presence of PW.6 at the time of alleged incident. As per statement of PW.7, PW.6 came to the spot after all the accused left the spot. Hence, PW.6 cannot be considered as eyewitness. PW.6 has given evidence against the accused as there is enmity towards them. PW.6 is none other than the brother of PW.7. PW.6 tried to show that he was also an eye witness to the incident, but this claim of his witness in witnessing the incident is false as PW.7 in his statement and further statement has categorically stated that after all the accused left the spot, PW.6 came to the spot. The Trial Court, without assessing the evidence of witnesses and also without considering the argument canvassed, has blindly convicted the accused by - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7774 CRL.A No. 577 of 2014 culling out the provision of law in the Judgment. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have seen that the medical evidence was in direct contravention with the theory of the prosecution that the accused assaulted the deceased with kolugathi. As regards prosecution witness, the same does not corroborate with regard to nature of overt acts of the accused. The medical evidence produced by the prosecution is quite contrary to ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution. The wound certificate does not reveal the name of the accused. Accordingly, Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow this appeal. 11. Learned High Court Government Pleader Smt.N.Anitha Girish would support the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence and submit that there is no ground for interference by this Court. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7774 CRL.A No. 577 of 2014 12. Having heard the arguments on both sides and after perusal of materials on record the following point would arise for my consideration: "Whether the Trial Court is justified in convicting the accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 for the offence under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC?" 13. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. 14. This appeal was filed by all the appellant Nos.1 to 5. As per the order passed by this Court dated 10.12.2025 in view of death of appellant Nos.1 and 4, appeal against appellant Nos.1 and 4 stands abated. 15. The complainant Uttappa had lodged a complaint. The same reads as follows: "£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝPÉÆAqÀÄ PÁ¦ü vÉÆÃlzÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ fêÀ£À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£ÀUÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÀÅgÀ mË£ï£À°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ªÀiÁf ±Á¸ÀPÀgÁzÀ ¢ªÀAUÀvÀ eÉ.r. ¸ÉÆêÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ ªÁ¸ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉêÀÄAvÀgÀªÀjUÀÆ £À£ ºÉ¨Áì¯É UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.328/1gÀ°ègÀĪÀ 10 JPÀgÉ PÁ¦ü vÉÆÃlzÀ - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7774 CRL.A No. 577 of 2014 «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ªÁådå«zÀÄÝ, FUÉÎ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ »AzÉ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è £À£ÀßAvÉ wêÀiÁð£ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ PÁ¦üà vÉÆÃlzÀ°è F ¢£À ¨É½UÉÎ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 9.00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉêÀÄAvÀ ºÁUÀÆ vÉÆÃlzÀ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ gÁdªÀiÁtÂPÀå, gÀWÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ J®ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃj £À£Àß ¨Á§ÄÛ PÁ¦ü vÉÆÃlzÀ°è PÁ¦ü PÀÄAiÀÄÄåwÛzÁÝUÀ PÉüÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀªÀgÉ®ègÀÆ UÀÄA¥ÀÅ PÀnÖPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ, J®ègÀÆ PÉÆîÄUÀwÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀÄ JA§ÄªÀ£ÀÄ PÉÆîÄUÀwÛ¬ÄAzÀ £À£Àß vÀ¯ÉUÉ, PÀÄwÛUÉUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ gÀPÀÛUÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ£ÀÄ. ºÉêÀÄAvÀ PÀwÛ¬ÄAzÀ £À£Àß JqÀªÉÆtPÉÊUÉ PÀvÀÛj¹zÀ, £À£Àß ªÉÆtPÉÊ ªÀÄÄjzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÉÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ D¼ÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ gÁdªÀiÁtÂPÀå JA§ÄªÀ£ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß vÀ©â »rzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ gÀWÀÄ JA§ÄªÀ£ÀÄ PÀwÛ¬ÄAzÀ £À£Àß JqÀUÉÊ£À ºÉ¨ÉâgÀ½UÉ PÀwÛ¬ÄAzÀ PÀvÀÛj¹zÀÄÝ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ JA§ÄªÀ£ÀÄ PÀwÛ¬ÄAzÀ £À£Àß JzÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄzsÀå¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß J®ègÀÆ PÉÆîÄUÀwÛ¬ÄAzÀ PÀvÀÛj¹ PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄ£À¹ìUÉ §AzÀAvÉ ªÉÄÊPÉÊUÉ PÀvÀÛj¹ wêÀæ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ gÀPÀÛUÁAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄßAlÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, J®ègÀÆ ¸ÀܼÀ¢AzÀ ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. gÀPÀÛzÀ ªÀÄqÀÄ«£À°è ©¢ÝzÀÝ £À£ÀߣÀÄß C¯Éèà ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀzÀ°èzÀÝ £À£Àß CtÚ£ÁzÀ ¸ÀħæªÀÄtå JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ, PÀÆqÀ¯Éà D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ DA§Ä¯É£ïìUÉ ¥sÉÇÃ£ï ªÀiÁr¹ DA§Ä¯É£ïì vÀj¹ ¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÀÅgÀzÀ ¸ÀgÀPÁj D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ aQvÉìUÉ ¸ÉÃj¹zÀgÀÄ. £À£ÀUÉ PÀwÛ¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆqÉ¢gÀĪÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÀå PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¹.J¥sï. D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è aQvÉì ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÁÝUÀ PÉÆlÖ ºÉýPÉ". 16. On the basis of this complaint, the concerned police have registered the case in Crime No.50/2010 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7774 CRL.A No. 577 of 2014 against the accused for the offence under Section 143, 147, 341, 324, 326, 307 r/w 149 IPC and submitted the FIR to the Court on the same day at 02.30 p.m. as per Ex.P.4. 17. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined in all 17 witnesses as PWs.1 to 17 and 19 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.19 and 7 material objects were marked as M.O.1 to 7. 18. The complainant Uttappa was examined as PW.7. Uttappa has deposed as to the contents of Ex.P.1. He has also deposed as to the identification of the M.O.Nos.1 to 4. 19. PW.6 - K G Subramanya is said to be the eyewitness and also mahazar witness examined as PW.6 has deposed his evidence that there is a land dispute between his younger brother and accused is the elder brother of CW.1 Further he has deposed that on 05.03.2010 at about 9 a.m. he was returning from his - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7774 CRL.A No. 577 of 2014 garden at Hebbasale. Hence, he has heard the scream of his younger brother, then he came to the spot, then accused No.1 - Vasu found assaulting his younger brother with kathi on his neck. 20. Accused No.2, Hemanth, assaulted his younger brother with a katthi on his shoulder. Accused No.5, Raja Manikya, caught hold of the younger brother during the assault. Accused No.3, Raju, inflicted a blow on the younger brother’s left thumb with a katthi. Accused No.4, Ramachandra, assaulted the younger brother on his chest. The accused were allegedly shouting that they would kill him. On hearing the hue and cry, Mandanna and Gopalakrishna came to the spot. The younger brother sustained grievous and fatal injuries. He was shifted to the Government Hospital, Shakaleshpura and later to Mangalore for further treatment. PW.6 also deposed regarding the mahazar conducted by the police as per Ex. P5. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7774 CRL.A No. 577 of 2014 21. PW.8, Gopalakrishna, has deposed regarding the mahazar conducted by the police as per Exs.P9 and P10. PW9, Mandanna, did not support the case of the prosecution and he was treated as partly hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. Even during the course of cross-examination, he categorically denied as to statement recorded by police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., which is marked as Ex.P.11. 22. PW.10 Ananda has deposed regarding the mahazar conducted by the police as per Ex.P10. 23. PW.11 C.K. Puttaswamy has deposed about the arrest of Accused No.1 and stated that he produced him before the Investigating Officer and submitted a report as per Ex.P12. 24. PW.12 Chandrappa, PW.13 K.L. Ganesh, and PW.14 A.V. Somashekaregowda have deposed regarding their respective roles in the investigation. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7774 CRL.A No. 577 of 2014 25. PW.15 Siddappa, Police Constable, has deposed that he submitted the FIR to the Court. 26. PW.16 Dr. Adhyanthya has deposed in his evidence regarding the examination of the injured, K.G. Uthappa, and stated that he found the injuries as mentioned in the wound certificate marked as Ex. P14. He has also deposed with respect to Exs.P15 and P16. 27. PW.1 Dr. Umesh S.V. has deposed in his evidence regarding the examination of the injured and the issuance of the wound certificate marked as Ex. P1. 28. PW.2 Harish K., Police Constable, has deposed in his evidence that he produced the material objects before the FSL, Mysore. 29. PW.9-Mandanna, PW.13-Ganesh, and PW.17 Deepak have deposed regarding their respective roles in the investigation. PW.3 Rajaiah, A.S.I., and PW.11 and - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7774 CRL.A No. 577 of 2014 PW.12 have also deposed regarding their respective investigations. 30. PW.4 Sanjeeva has deposed regarding the mahazar conducted by the police as per Ex.P5. 31. PW.5 S.N. Goankar, Assistant Director of RFSL, Bangalore, has deposed regarding the RFSL report, which is marked as Exs. P6 to P8. 32. On a careful examination of the entire evidence on record, it is crystal clear that PW.6 K.G. Subramanya is projected as the only eyewitness. However, during the course of his cross-examination, it is revealed that Ex.P2, the complaint, does not disclose that PW.6 had witnessed the alleged incident. In Ex.P2, it is stated that after the incident, the elder brother of Subramanya came and shifted him in an ambulance to the Government Hospital, Sakleshpura. 33. PW.7 Uthappa has deposed that when his elder brother Subramanya and Gopal arrived at the spot, the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7774 CRL.A No. 577 of 2014 accused ran away from the place upon seeing them. Hence, PW.6 cannot be considered as an eyewitness to the incident. The other alleged eyewitness have also not supported the case of the prosecution. 34. PW.6 has further deposed that at the time of the alleged incident, about 10 to 12 coolie workers were present. However, the Investigating Officer has not examined any of those workers to substantiate the evidence of the injured PW.7. Accordingly, the evidence of PW.7 has not been corroborated by any independent eyewitness. 35. The evidence of PW.7, the complainant, is also not supported by the medical evidence. The wound certificate, Ex.P1, reveals that Uthappa came to the hospital along with his brother with a history of assault on 05.03.2010 at 9.00 a.m. However, the name of the accused, the place of the incident and the weapons alleged - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7774 CRL.A No. 577 of 2014 to have been used by the accused have not been disclosed in Ex.P1. 36. Ex.P16, the injury certificate issued by Dr. S. Adyanthaya, Casualty Medical Officer, reveals that Uthappa K.G. was admitted to the hospital on 05.03.2010 with a history of assault by a group of persons at 9.00 a.m. at Hebbasale. This wound certificate also does not disclose the names of the accused or the weapons allegedly used. The doctors have not deposed anything specifically against these accused. 37. Insofar as Accused No. 2-Hemanth, is concerned, Ex. P1 states that Accused No. 2 assaulted PW.7, resulting in a fracture of his left forearm. 38. Admittedly, there has been a dispute between PW.7 and the accused regarding land for the past 20 years, pertaining to land bearing Sy. No. 329/1 measuring 10 acres in Hebbasale Village. It is also an admitted fact that litigation between the complainant and the accused is - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7774 CRL.A No. 577 of 2014 pending before the Court. In view of this longstanding dispute, it would not be safe to convict the accused solely on the interested testimony of PW.7 without cogent, clinching, and corroborative evidence. Even the evidence of PW.7 is not supported by the medical records. 39. The Investigating Officer has not explained why the Medical Officer did not mention the names of the accused in the wound certificate. The Medical Officer who examined the injured has also not clarified this aspect. 40. Upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, I do not find any cogent, corroborative or trustworthy evidence to convict Accused Nos.2, 3, and 5. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in the proper perspective. Hence, the Trial Court was not justified in convicting Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 5. Hence, I answer the Point that arose for consideration in the negative. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7774 CRL.A No. 577 of 2014 41. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER. i) The Appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment of conviction and order and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan in SC No.144/2011 dated 07.07.2014 is set aside. iii) Appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC. iv) The Trial Court is directed to refund the fine amount if any, deposited by the appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 5, in accordance with law. The Registry is directed to send a copy of the judgment along with the TCR to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE GSR,SMC,List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29