- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6897 CRL.RP No. 6 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 6 OF 2025 BETWEEN: P SHIVARUDRAPPA S/O LATE PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/A ARALIKERE VILLAGE NAVILE POST, KASABA HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 226. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADV.) AND: 1. CHIKKABASAVARAJU S/O SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 2. RAJENDRA ALIAS GOWDA S/O CHIKKABASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDINGS OF ARALIKERE VILLAGE NAVILE POST, KASABA HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT. 3. STAT BY CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DHANANJAYA, ADV.) Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6897 CRL.RP No. 6 of 2025 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DTD 30.10.2024 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU (SITTING AT TIPTUR) IN CRL.A.NO.10003/2024 AND THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DTD 06.01.2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI IN CC.NO.701/2018 AND CONVICT THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 427,447,506 R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Complainant is before this Court under Sections 397 read with 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.10.2024 passed in CC.No.701/2018 by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli, and the judgment and order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the Court of V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tumkur (sitting at Tiptur), in Crl.A.No.10003/2024. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. Respondents herein were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 506 read with 34 of IPC in CC.No.701/2018 and the Trial Court by judgment and order dated 06.01.2024 had acquitted the respondents for the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6897 CRL.RP No. 6 of 2025 charge-sheeted offences. The said judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.01.2024 passed in CC.No.701/2018 has been confirmed in Crl.A.No.10003/2024 by the Court of V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tumkur (sitting at Tiptur) by judgment and order dated 30.10.2024. Assailing the concurrent judgment and order of acquittal passed by the courts below, the complainant is before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the courts below have failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record, and have erred in acquitting the accused for the charge-sheeted offences. He submits that though the prosecution had proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt against the accused, the courts below have erred in acquitting the accused. 5. The allegation against the accused is that they had trespassed into the property bearing Sy. No.59/5 measuring 23 guntas belonging to CW-1 and had cut and removed three neem trees from the said property. When CW-1 & CW-2 questioned the said act, accused nos.1 & 2 allegedly threatened - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6897 CRL.RP No. 6 of 2025 them with dire consequences to their life. It is under these circumstances, FIR was registered against accused nos.1 & 2 for the aforesaid offences and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against them. 6. According to PW-1, there were nine neem trees in property bearing Sy. No.59/5 and out of the same, six were cut and removed by him and remaining three trees were cut and removed by accused nos.1 & 2. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has recorded a finding that the prosecution had failed to prove that three neem trees were available in property bearing Sy. No.59/5, after six neem trees were cut and removed by PW-1. 7. PW-6 - Investigation Officer has stated that he had not ascertained the ownership of the property belonging to PW-1 and the stem of three neem trees allegedly cut and removed by accused nos.1 & 2 were also not identified. It is under these circumstances, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt against accused nos.1 & 2/Respondents. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6897 CRL.RP No. 6 of 2025 8. The Appellate Court having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has confirmed the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAHABIR & OTHERS VS STATE OF HARYANA - (2025) INSC 120, has observed that the scope for this court to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction with the judgment and orders of acquittal passed by two courts, is very minimal. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out that the impugned judgment and orders of acquittal has been passed by overlooking the oral and documentary evidence available on record. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this revision petition does not merit consideration. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK