- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5155 CRL.A No. 355 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 355 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. MADEGOWDA S/O MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/A BEECHANAHALLI VILLAGE, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 116. 2. AYYEGOWDA S/O MOTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A HONNIKUPPE VILLAGE, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 134. 3. MAHADEVAMMA W/O AYYEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A HONNIKUPPE VILLAGE, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 134. 4. MAKAMMA W/O MADEGOWDA, DEAD AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/A HONNIKUPPE VILLAGE HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 134. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. TOMY SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5155 CRL.A No. 355 of 2015 AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HUNSUR RURAL POLICE STATION MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 19.2.2015, PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC & MACT, HUNSUR, IN S.C.NO.90/13 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 326 R/W SEC 34 OF IPC AND APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 & 4 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 114 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court and MACT, Hunsur in S.C. No.90/2013 dated 19.02.2015. 2. Parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Police Sub-Inspector, Hunsur Police Station submitted the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5155 CRL.A No. 355 of 2015 charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that, there was a land dispute between the complainant and accused No.3- Mahadevamma and both are not in good terms. The elders of the village asked the accused to give up encroached portion of the land to Javaregowda, however, Mahadevamma did not agree for giving up of the land and also made plan to kill Javaregowda. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that on 02.09.2011 at 5.30 p.m., when Javaregowda was proceeding towards his Village Honnikuppe on bicycle, accused No.1-Madegowda and accused No.2-Ayyegowda came near Gobli tree of CBT colony and dashed against the bicycle of Javaregowda. When Javaregowda questioned them regarding the same, accused Nos.3-Mahadevamma and accused No.4- Makamma, who were supporting Madegowda and Ayyegowda instigated them to kill him. Accused No.1- Madegowda suddenly assaulted with chopper over the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5155 CRL.A No. 355 of 2015 mouth, cheek and accused No.2-Ayyegowda assaulted with knife on the upper left side of the chest, stating that they will not spare him. When the victim started crying, Venkataramana and Chandra came from CBT colony, meanwhile, the assailants ran away from the spot. Thus, the accused had committed the alleged offences. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet. The case was registered in CC.No.35/2013 and the same was committed to the Court of Sessions, which came to be registered as SC.No.90/2013. The accused were on bail. 4. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court framed the charges against the accused for the alleged commission of offences. Same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all, 12 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 12, 10 documents - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5155 CRL.A No. 355 of 2015 were marked as ExsP.1 to P.10 and 3 material objects were marked as M.O.Nos. 1 to 3. 6. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C were recorded. Accused have totally denied the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. However, they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. During the course of cross-examination of PW.5, Exs.D1 and 2 were marked. 7. On hearing the arguments, the trial Court has convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC, and accused Nos.3 and 4 for the offence punishable under Section 114 read with Section 34 of IPC and acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The trial Court sentenced accused Nos.1 and 2 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 326 read - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5155 CRL.A No. 355 of 2015 with Section 34 IPC and accused Nos.3 and 4 were also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellants have preferred this appeal. The appeal as against appellant No.4 stands abated as per order dated 02.12.2025. 9. Sri Tomy Sebastian, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court are opposed to law, facts, and probabilities of the case. He further submits that the prosecution case solely rests on the testimony of PW.1-Javaregowda and there are no eye witnesses to the incident. Admittedly, there exists a strong motive for PW.1-Javaregowda to falsely implicate the appellants by taking advantage of the injuries sustained by him, which were inflicted by persons other than the accused, who were unknown to the injured. Further, he - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5155 CRL.A No. 355 of 2015 would submit that Ex.P3-MLC register does not disclose the names of the accused. Subsequently, in Ex.P7-wound certificate, the name of accused No.1 along with an unknown person is shown and even the name of accused No.2 does not find mention therein. The prosecution has failed to explain the reasons for not disclosing the names of the accused at the first instance. Admittedly, there is a land boundary dispute between the family of the accused and the family of the complainant. There are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. It is only an afterthought that the complainant has implicated the appellants, though they have not committed any offence as alleged against them. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective and on these grounds, he seeks to allow the appeal. 10. Learned HCGP would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5155 CRL.A No. 355 of 2015 passed by the trial Court and sought dismissal of the appeal. 11. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of materials, the following points would arise for my consideration. i. Whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC? ii. Whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting accused Nos.3 and 4 for the offence under Section 114 read with Section 34 of IPC? iii. What order? 12. My answers to the above points are as under: Point Nos.1 and 2: Negative, Point No.3: As per final order. Regarding Point Nos.1 and 2: 13. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. The Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the commission of offence under Sections 307 and 114 of IPC. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, in all, 12 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5155 CRL.A No. 355 of 2015 witnesses were examined as PW.1 to PW.12 and 10 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.10. 14. This case arises out of the complaint filed by PW.1-Javaregowda, as per Ex.P1, which reads as under: “²æà dªÀgÉÃUËqÀ ©£ï ¥ÀÄmÉÖÃUËqÀ, 40 ªÀµÀð, PÀÄgÀħ UËqÀgÀÄ, ªÀåªÀ¸ÁAiÀÄ ªÀÈwÛ ºÉƤßPÀÄ¥Éà UÁæªÀÄ, ºÀÄt¸ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ11 ¢£ÁAPÀB 02/03.09.2011 £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £ÀªÀÄä UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÀĺÀzÉêÀªÀÄä¤UÀÆ, £ÀªÀÄUÀÆ d«Ää£À «ZÁgÀzÀ°è »A¢¤AzÀ zÉéõÀ EvÀÄÛ. PÁgÀt ªÀĺÀzÉêÀªÀÄä£À d«Ää¤AzÀ ¸Àé®à ¨sÁUÀ d«ÄãÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÉÃgÀ¨ÉÃPÁVzÀÝjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄRAqÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ wêÀiÁð£À ªÀiÁr ¸Àé®à d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ ©r¹ PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. F «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ªÀĺÀzÉêÀªÀÄä UÁæªÀÄzÀªÀgÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß «ÄÃj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀ®Ä vÀUÁzÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ºÉÃUÁzÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁr PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁr ªÀÄÄV¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀAZÀÄ gÀƦ¹zÀݼÀÄ. JgÀqÀÄ-ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¸Áj »AzÉ EzÉà jÃw ¸ÀAZÀÄ gÀƦ¹ dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁr¹zÀݼÀÄ. CªÁUÀ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀUÉ ¸Á¢ü¹PÉƼÀî®Ä DVgÀ°®è. EzÉà zÉéõÀ ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ F ¢ªÀ¸À ¢£ÁAPÀ 02.09.2011 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 5.30 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï ªÉÄÃ¯É HjUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ PÉÆAiÀÄåªÀÄvÀÆÛgÀÄ PÁ¯ÉÆäAiÀÄ UÉƧ⽠ªÀÄgÀzÀ ºÀwÛgÀ £À£Àß ¸ÉÊPÀ°èUÉ aPÀÌ©ÃZÀ£ÀºÀ½ì UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÀiÁzÉÃUËqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CAiÀÄåUËqÀ ¸ÉÊPÀ°UÉ rQÌ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄ®Ä §AzÀgÀÄ, DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁPÀæ¥Àà ¸ÉÊPÀ°UÉ CqÀØ §A¢j CAvÀ PÉýzÁUÀ CªÀgÀ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ¯Éèà ¤AwzÀÝ £ÀªÀÄÆäj£À ªÀĺÀzÉêÀªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁPÀªÀÄä £À£Àß PÀqÉ PÉÊ vÉÆÃj¸ÀÄvÁÛ CªÀ£É, CªÀ£É JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸ÀÄvÁÛ ©qÀ¨ÉÃr PÉÆaÑ ºÁQ JAzÀÄ PÀĪÀÄäPÀÄÌ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝAvÉ KPÁKQ ªÀiÁzÉÃUËqÀ ªÀÄaѤAzÀ £À£Àß ¨Á¬ÄUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ PÀvÀÛj¹ £ÀAvÀgÀ PÉ£ÉßUÉ ªÀÄaѤAzÀ JqÀzÀ PÉ£ÉßUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀ£ÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ CAiÀÄåUËqÀ ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ £À£Àß JqÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ JzÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄïÁãUÀPÉÌ ZÀÄaÑ E§âgÀÆ EªÀvÀÄÛ ¤£Àß ªÀÄÄV¸ÀzÉ ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹zÀgÀÄ. vÀPÀët £Á£ÀÄ eÉÆÃgÁV PÀÆVPÉÆAqÁUÀ PÉÆAiÀÄåªÀÄÄvÀÆÛgÀÄ PÁ¯ÉÆäAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ ªÉAPÀlgÀªÀÄt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÀAzÀæ JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ Nr §AzÀÄæ, CªÀgÀ »AzÉ E£ÀÆß PÉ®ªÀgÀÄ §AzÀgÀÄ. CµÀÖgÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀªÀgÀÄ C°èAzÀ Nr ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. vÀPÀët £À£ÀߣÀÄß ºÀÄt¸ÀÆgÀÄ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀgÀÄ. C°è ªÉÊzÀågÀÄ aQvÉì ªÀiÁr £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÉÄöʸÀÆj£À PÉ.Dgï. D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä w½¹zÀgÀÄ. DUÀ £ÀªÀÄä PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÉÄöʸÀÆj£À PÁªÉÃj D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ aQvÉìUÉ ¸ÉÃj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£ÀUÉ ¨Á¬Ä, JqÀzÀ PÉ£Éß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÉUÉ wêÀæ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ, £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹zÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÀ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÁV PÉÆÃjPÉ. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5155 CRL.A No. 355 of 2015 N¢¹ PÉýzÉ ¸Àj¬ÄzÉ. J¯ï.n.JA. D¥üï dªÀgÉÃUËqÀ. “Befor Me” Sd/- (Dr. L. Ramesh Naik) (CMO) Cauvery Hospital, #42/2 B, 2C, Teresian College Circle, Siddarthanagar, Mysore-570011. ¢£ÁAPÀ 02/03.09.11 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 12.15 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ 01.00 UÀAmɪÀgÉUÉ ªÉÄöʸÀÆj£À PÁªÉÃj D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ«£À ºÉýPÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì oÁuÉUÉ 02.30 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è §AzÀÄ oÁuÁ ªÉÆ.£ÀA.228/2011 PÀ®A 307, 114 gÉ/« 34 L.¦.¹. jÃvÁå ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¸À»/- 02/03.09.11. J.J¸ï.L.” 15. PW.1-Javaregowda has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. 16. PW.2-Chandregowda and PW.3-Chikkanna are said to be mahazar witnesses. They have deposed with regard to the mahazar conducted by the police as per Ex.P2. 17. PW.4-Sadananda, who is a hearsay witness, deposed about the land dispute between the family of the accused and the family of the complainant. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5155 CRL.A No. 355 of 2015 18. PW.5- Devarajareddy has deposed in his evidence with regard to the land boundary dispute between the accused’s family and complainant’s family. He has further deposed that when the matter was placed before the elders of the village, they advised the parties to settle the dispute amicably and accordingly, a hudbust stone was fixed in his land. 19. CW.4-Chandra @ Ravichandra stated to be eye witness is examined as PW.6. In his evidence, he has deposed that he knows accused Nos.1 to 4 and that there was a land dispute between the accused and the complainant. He further deposed that about 2 ½ years back, one day at about 5.30 p.m., while he was proceeding on a scooter to bring his wife near the Gobali tree at CBT Colony, he saw the accused proceeding towards the garden. Thereafter, he went to the spot and found that Javaregowda had sustained injuries on his left cheek, mouth and chest. On enquiry, Javaregowda revealed that Ayyegowda-accused No.2 and his followers - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5155 CRL.A No. 355 of 2015 had assaulted him. Then he shifted the injured to the hospital and informed the same to the family members of PW.1 - Javaregowda and then came to the hospital. Thereafter, the injured was shifted to the Mysuru hospital. On the next day, police came to the spot and conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 and seized MO.Nos.1 to 3. 20. PW.7 - Dr.Uday Kumar, Medical Officer has deposed in his evidence that on 02.09.2011 at 06.45 a.m. one Ravichandra brought the injured - Javaregowda. He has examined him and found the injuries as shown in Ex.P3 - MLC register. PW.8 - Basavanaika, PSI, PW.9 - G.Udayaravi, ASI and PW.12 - Arun L., PSI, have deposed as to their respective investigation. PW.10 - Dr. Ramesh Nayak has deposed in his evidence that on 02.09.2011 at 10.30 p.m., Javaregowda came to Cauvery Hospital for treatment and sustained injuries on his chin, cheek, lips and on face. Javaregowda has told that one Madegowda and another assaulted him. He was conscious and able to - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5155 CRL.A No. 355 of 2015 speak. The police have recorded the statement of Javaregowda as per Ex.P1 - Complaint. 21. PW.11 - Dr.Pramod has deposed in his evidence that he has examined Javaregowda - injured and issued scan photos with reports as per Ex.P8 and wound certificate as per Ex.P7. 22. On careful examination of the entire evidence on record, it is crystal-clear that there is a land boundary dispute between the accused and PW.1 - Javaregowda. In the complaint, it is stated that accused No.3 - Mahadevamma and accused No.4 - Makamma instigated accused Nos.1 and 2 to kill PW.1. Then Madegowda assaulted by accused No.1 with chopper on his mouth and cheek and accused No.2 assaulted with a knife on his upper left side of the chest. It is alleged that Venkataramana and Chandra came the spot and then accused fled the spot. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5155 CRL.A No. 355 of 2015 23. The Investigating Officer has not cited the alleged eye witness Venkataramana in the charge sheet. The IO has not assigned any reasons for not examining the alleged eye witness Venkataramana. The another eye witness Chandra @ Ravichandra examined as PW.6 and he has not deposed anything as to the alleged incident. Though PW.6 is figured as eye witness, he has not deposed in his evidence that he has witnessed the incident. He has specifically stated that only after the incident he has received the information through the injured Javaregowda that the accused Madegowda has assaulted him. Therefore, PW.6 cannot be considered as eyewitness. He is a hearsay witness. 24. Now, this Court has to examine whether the evidence of PW.1 is trustworthy to convict the accused for the alleged commission of offences. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant rightly pointed out that PW.1 - Javaregowda admitted to the hospital with history of assault by some person from Beechanahalli. But the name - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5155 CRL.A No. 355 of 2015 of the accused is not disclosed by PW.1. PW.7 - Dr.Uday Kumar, Medical Officer, who has examined the injured has not deposed anything against the accused. On the same day, the accused was shifted to Cauvery Hospital. The case sheet maintained by the Cauvery Hospital is not produced by the IO. The IO has not explained anything as to the non-production of the case sheet maintained by the Cauvery Hospital. Though the injured admitted to the hospital as inpatient, for the first time, PW.1 has disclosed the name of Madegowda, Beechanahalli and the same is mentioned in Ex.P7 - Wound Certificate. The name of accused Nos.1 and 2 to 4 are not disclosed in Ex.P7 - Wound Certificate. PW.10 - Dr.Ramesh has also deposed that the injured has informed that one Madegowda and another unknown persons have assaulted him. He has not deposed as to the act of other accused and has clearly stated that the injured was able to speak. However, he has not disclosed the name of other accused. Ex.P7 - Wound Certificate does not reveal as to the knife said to - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5155 CRL.A No. 355 of 2015 have been used by the accused. The MLC report also does not reveal the name of the accused hitting the injured by using sharp knife. Since there is no cogent, convincing, clinching evidence, the sole interested testimony of PW.1 is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused have committed the alleged offences. 25. Admittedly, there is a land dispute between the accused and PW.1. In such circumstances, it is quite natural to somehow depose against the accused to convict them for the commission of alleged offences. The evidence of PW.1 will create doubt as to the alleged act of the accused. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and convicted the accused, which is not sustainable under law. Hence, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 in negative. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5155 CRL.A No. 355 of 2015 Regarding Point No.3: For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The criminal appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment of conviction and order and sentence passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court and M.A.C.T., Hunsur in SC.No.90/2013 dated 19.02.2015, is set aside. iii) Accused Nos.1 and 2/Appellant Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the offence under Section 326 r/w Section 34 of IPC and accused No.3/Appellant No.3 is acquitted of the offence under Section 114 r/w Section 34 of IPC. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5155 CRL.A No. 355 of 2015 iv) The fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellants shall be returned to them in accordance with law. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with TCRs to the trial Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE MBM, PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34