- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13867 CRL.A No. 386 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 386 OF 2026 BETWEEN: N K RADHAMOHAN S/O LATE N.M KRISHNAMURTHI AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.9/2, ASHOKA ROAD SAGAR (T) SHIVAMOGGA-577401 …APPELLANT (BY SRI HARISH KUMAR M S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SAGAR RURAL POLICE STATION, SAGAR, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING. 2. KALLAHALLI HUCHAPPA S/O BEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS AGRICULTURIST. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13867 CRL.A No. 386 of 2026 3. MADHUCHANDRA @ MADHUSUDANA S/O KALLAHALLI HUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS AGRICULTURIST BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF GALIPURA, HOSAKOPPA VILLAGE, TALAGUPPA HOBLI, SAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 412. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DIWAKAR MADDUR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A FILED U/S 372 CR.P.C (U/S 413 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 29.11.2025 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.10056/2025 BY THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA (SITTING AT SAGAR) AND RESTORE AND UPHOLD THE JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR IN C.C.NO.178/2018 DATED 23.07.2025, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 435, 511, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13867 CRL.A No. 386 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the complainant/appellant challenging the judgement and order dated 29.11.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10056/2025 by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Shivamogga (Sitting at Sagar) (for short hereinafter referred to as the "first appellate court"), whereby, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 23.07.2025 passed in CC No.178/2018 by Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Sagar (for short hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court"), came to be set aside. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are the complainant/appellant claiming to be the owner of a land measuring 4 acres in Site No.127 situated at Dombe Village, Talaguppa Hobli, Sagar Taluk, wherein he claimed to have grown rubber trees. It is his further case that an extent of 1.25 acres of Bagar Hukum land in Sy.No.92, which is in his possession. There is a dispute with regard - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13867 CRL.A No. 386 of 2026 to the said Bagar Hukum land between the appellant and the accused persons. That on 01.03.2015 at about 10.00 p.m., the accused persons with an intention to destroy the rubber trees grown on the land of the complainant/ appellant, set fire to the grass, which was grown in the Bagar Hukum land in Sy.No.92. When the complainant questioned the accused persons, they threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint. 3. Pursuant to the said complaint, crime was registered; Investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 435, 511, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC). 4. Complainant/Appellant examined himself as PW-1 and four other witnesses, PW-2 to PW-5 were also examined on behalf of the appellant and the appellant produced 25 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P25. 313 statement was recorded. Accused denied the allegations made. Accused has confronted PW-1 with seven - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13867 CRL.A No. 386 of 2026 documents, which are marked as Exs.D1 to D7. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 435, 511, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the accused in Criminal Appeal No.10056 of 2025 before the First Appellate Court. In the said appeal, the First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1) Whether the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons/appellants committed the offences punishable under Sections 435, 511 and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.? 2) Whether the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.178/2018 dated 23.07.2025 is improper, illegal and deserves to be set aside? 3) What order? 6. On re-appreciation of the evidence, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.178 of 2018 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13867 CRL.A No. 386 of 2026 dated 23.07.2025 and consequently, acquitted the accused persons of the offences punishable under Sections 435, 511, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant/appellant is before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant taking this Court through the records vehemently submits that the First Appellate Court grossly erred in allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and order of sentence and conviction passed by the Trial Court, without appreciating the fact that the appellant was in possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy.No.92, which is situated abutting his land in Sy.No.127. He submits that the accused persons with whom there is a pending civil dispute, with an intention of causing loss to the appellant had set fire to the grass grown in the land in Sy.No.92, thereby, committed the offence of mischief as contemplated under the IPC, eventually making themselves liable to be punished under Sections 435, 511 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. He submits that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13867 CRL.A No. 386 of 2026 appellant having established a case beyond reasonable doubt, the First Appellate Court ought not to have interfered with the judgment and the order passed by the Trial Court. 8. Heard Sri.Harish Kumar.M.S., learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Diwakar Maddur, learned HCGP appearing for Respondent/State and perused the records. 9. Sections 425 and 435 of IPC reads as follows: Section 425: Mischief- Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief". Explanation 1.—It is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender should intend to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed. It is sufficient if he intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property, whether it belongs to that person or not. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13867 CRL.A No. 386 of 2026 Explanation 2.—Mischief may be committed by an act affecting property belonging to the person who commits the act, or to that person and others jointly. Illustrations: (a) A voluntarily burns a valuable security belonging to Z intending to cause wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief. (b) A introduces water in to an ice-house belonging to Z and thus causes the ice to melt, intending wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief. (c) A voluntarily throws into a river a ring belonging to Z, with the intention of thereby causing wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief. (d) A, knowing that his effects are about to be taken in execution in order to satisfy a debt due from him to Z, destroys those effects, with the intention of thereby preventing Z from obtaining satisfaction of the debt, and of thus causing damage to Z. A has committed mischief. (e) A having insured a ship, voluntarily causes the same to be cast away, with the intention of causing damage to the underwriters. A has committed mischief. (f) A causes a ship to be cast away, intending thereby to cause damage to Z who has lent money on bottomry on the ship. A has committed mischief. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13867 CRL.A No. 386 of 2026 (g) A, having joint property with Z in a horse, shoots the horse, intending thereby to cause wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief. (h) A causes cattle to enter upon a field belonging to Z, intending to cause and knowing that he is likely to cause damage to Z's crop. A has committed mischief. 435. Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred or (in case of agricultural produce) ten rupees.— Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, damage to any property to the amount of one hundred rupees or upwards or (where the property is agricultural produce) ten rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 10. 10. Thus, the complainant/appellant is required to establish that the accused persons with an intention of causing loss to the property had set fire. Admittedly, the land in Sy.No.92 does not belong to the appellant. He claims that it is a Bagar Hukum land situated abutting his land in Sy.No.127. Though he claimed to be in possession of the said land, there appears to be counter claim over - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13867 CRL.A No. 386 of 2026 the said land by the accused persons if they being in possession of the said land. 11. Prior to the initiation of these proceedings, there appears to have been a complaint by the respondents/accused persons, which had resulted in conducting of enquiry by the Sub-Inspector who had submitted his report stating that the dispute between the appellant and the accused was of civil in nature. The same is evidenced by Exs.D1 and D2, which is admitted by the appellant. It is also borne out of records that the appellant himself had submitted application at Ex.P4 to the Tahsildar seeking rejection of the application filed by the accused for regularisation of their unauthorised occupation of land in Sy.No.92. 12. Clearly, as rightly taken note of by the First Appellate Court, there is admittedly a civil dispute between the appellant and the accused with regard to this land in Sy.No.92. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13867 CRL.A No. 386 of 2026 13. The counsel for the appellant fairly submits that the said land in Sy.No.92 does not belong either to the appellant or to the accused. However, since the fire was set on the said land, it had entered the land of the appellant. But, he is unable to point out any acceptable material evidence in this regard. 14. This Court do not see any error in the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the First Appellate Court. The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32