- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1950 CRL.A No. 100272 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100272 OF 2017 (A) BETWEEN: MOHAN DUNDAPPA NANNURI AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MASUR VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VENKATARAO DESHMUKH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PARAMESH S/O RAMCHANDRAPPA KSHATRI AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: DAILY WAGE, WORKER IN PANCHAYAT, R/O: MASUR VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY POLICE INSPECTOR, HIREKERUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT PREMISES, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIREKERUR, IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 24 OF 2013 DATED 12.07.2017 CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED THAT IS RESPONDENT NO. 1 HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341, 323, 504 AND 506 OF IPC. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.13 15:47:32 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1950 CRL.A No. 100272 of 2017 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Venkatarao Deshmukh appearing on behalf of Sri. Aravind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2-State and Sri. Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. This is an appeal filed by the defacto complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 12.07.2017 passed in C.C. No.24/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur1. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that based on the charge sheet, the charges were framed at the first instance on 23.07.2013, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 18602. But based on the submissions 1 For short ‘the Trial Court’ 2 For short, ‘IPC’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1950 CRL.A No. 100272 of 2017 made on behalf of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on 26.03.2015, additional charges were framed under Sections 324 and 355 of IPC. 4. However, the learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned judgment did not raise a point with regard to the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 355 of IPC, resulting in miscarriage of justice and therefore, sought for allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 5. When the said aspect of the matter is brought to the notice of the learned counsel for respondents, they submit that it is no doubt true that additional charges have been framed on 26.03.2015. 6. But, the material evidence on record is hardly sufficient to establish the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 355 of IPC and therefore, it is a futile exercise in ordering for fresh trial. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1950 CRL.A No. 100272 of 2017 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that evidence has been recorded and accused's statement has also been recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate. 9. However, while raising the necessary points in the impugned judgment, there is no point raised for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 355 of IPC. Moreover, the first point raised in the impugned judgment is a common point wherein, the learned Trial Magistrate has included only four offences and not the remaining two offences for which additional charges have been framed. 10. Therefore, entire discussion of the material evidence is incorrect resulting in rendering the impugned judgment suffering from legal infirmity and thus, calls for interference by this Court in this appeal. 11. Expressing any opinion in this appeal, without there being a discussion on the offences punishable under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1950 CRL.A No. 100272 of 2017 Sections 324 and 355 of IPC from the material evidence on record, and if convicted for the first time before this Court in this appeal, then the accused will also be put to a greater hardship as he would lose the chance of an appeal. 12. Therefore, it is just and necessary for this Court to set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal only from the stage of hearing the arguments in respect of the additional charges framed under Sections 324 and 355 of IPC from the available evidence on record and pass fresh judgment in accordance with law. 13. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) Impugned judgment dated 12.07.2017 passed in C.C. No.24/2013, is hereby set aside. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1950 CRL.A No. 100272 of 2017 (iii) Matter is remitted to the learned Trial Magistrate for fresh disposal in accordance with law. (iv) Parties shall appear before the Trial Court without further notice on 24.02.2026. (v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this order. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SMM, CT:CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 3