Karnataka High Court
Anandakrishna vs State By Nagamangala Rural Police ... on 3 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:6356
CRL.A No. 798 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.798 OF 2014 (C)
BETWEEN:
1. ANANDAKRISHNA,
S/O RAMALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
2. VEERESHA
S/O CHANNE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/O B. SHETTI HALLI VILLAGE,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 427.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
STATE BY NAGAMANGALA RURAL
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
POLICE STATION
of Karnataka REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT, BANGALORE 01
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:23..7.2014 PASSED BY THE I
ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, IN
SPL.C.NO.33/12 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
NO.1 & 3 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504,323,324 R/W 34 OF
IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:6356
CRL.A No. 798 of 2014
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Appellants herein, i.e., accused 1 and 3, have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 23rd July 2014, Special Case No.33 of 2012 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (for short "the trial Court").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status and rank before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mandya Sub-division, Mandya submitted charge-sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 504, 324, 323 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "SC/ST (PoA) Act"). It is alleged by the prosecution that on 15th December, 2011 at about 3.00 pm, accused 1 and 3 joined together in furtherance of their common intention, had been to survey No.62 of Government Gomal land at B. Shettihalli and when the complainant questioned with regard to ploughing the -3- NC: 2026:KHC:6356 CRL.A No. 798 of 2014 HC-KAR land as it has been earmarked for graveyard, the accused abused him as "ºÉƯÉAiÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£É" by taking his caste and told him that the land does not belong to his father, it belongs to them and thereby they are ploughing it. Accused No.3 instigated accuse No.1 not to leave the complainant, belongs to schedule caste, and humiliated in public view being well aware that he belongs to schedule caste community and even assaulted him on his forehead with a stone. Accused No.3 assaulted him and pushed him to the land, dragged and tore his baniyan and voluntarily caused simple injury and also threatened with dire consequences by committing criminal intimidation. Thereby, the accused have committed the alleged offences. Accused are enlarged on bail.
4. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court framed charges and the same were read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses as PWs1 to 7 and marked eight documents as Exhibits P1 to P8 and five material objects were marked as MOs1 to 5. On closure of prosecution -4- NC: 2026:KHC:6356 CRL.A No. 798 of 2014 HC-KAR side evidence, statements of the accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. Accused have denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them, but they did not choose lead any defence evidence on their behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court acquitted Accused 1 and 3 for offence punishable under Section 506 read with 34 of Indian penal code and section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act. Trial court convicted the accused 1 and 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months with fine of ₹2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 504 read with 34 Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for period of one month with fine of ₹1,000/- for offence punishable under section 323 read with 34 Indian Penal Code and were further sentenced to pay fine of ₹5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused have preferred present appeal. -5-
NC: 2026:KHC:6356 CRL.A No. 798 of 2014 HC-KAR
5. Smt. Archana Murthy P., learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence is illegal and against the facts and circumstances of case. She would submit that there is a case and counter case. In fact, the complainant Javaraiah assaulted the appellant No.1 with Stone on his back and his son, Krishna assaulted appellant No.2 on his Head with stone and threatened with dire consequences. She would submit that the injuries are lacerated wound on the forehead and forearm, which are simple in nature. Hence, the trial Court ought not to have imposed fine on the appellants. She would submit that there are no overt acts against the appellant No.2. There is a civil dispute between Shivanna and brother of PW2-Shankar and accused No.1 in respect of land. He belongs to the community of the complainant and as such he is an interested witness and his evidence cannot be relied upon. PW4-Dhanpal has categorically stated in his evidence that he signed the mahazar in the Police Station and the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure of material object. PW2 also admits that the complainant Javaraiah and his son assaulted the appellants and as such SC No.188 of 2012 was filed against the complainant. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC:6356 CRL.A No. 798 of 2014 HC-KAR She would submit that there is no cogent and convincing evidence to convict the accused. However, the trial court has convicted the accused, which is not sustainable. On all these grounds, she sought to allow the appeal.
6. As against this, Sri B. Lakshman, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the trial court has appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and there is no ground to interfere with impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard that arguments on both sides, the following points could arise for consideration:
"Whether the trial court is justified in convicting accused 1 and 3 for offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code?"
8. I have examined the material placed before this court. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15th December, 2011 at about 3.00 pm, accused 1 and 3 joined together and in -7- NC: 2026:KHC:6356 CRL.A No. 798 of 2014 HC-KAR furtherance of their common intention, had been to survey No.62 of Government Gomal land at B. Shettihalli. When the complainant questioned with regard to ploughing the land as it has been earmarked for graveyard, the accused abused him as "ºÉƯÉAiÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£É" by taking his caste name and told him that the land does not belong to his father and it belongs to them and thereby they are ploughing it. Accused No.3 instigated accused No.1 not to leave the complainant, who belongs to schedule caste and humiliated in public view being fully aware that he belongs to schedule caste community and even assaulted him on his forehead with a stone. Accused No.3 assaulted him and pushed him to the land and dragged and tore his baniyan and voluntarily caused simple injury, and also threatened with dire consequences by committing criminal intimidation. Thereby, the accused have committed the alleged offences. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses as PWs1 to 7 and marked eight documents as Exhibits P1 to P8 and five material objects were marked as MOs1 to 5. The trial court has acquitted accused 1 and 3 of the offence punishable under Sections 506 read 34 of Indian Penal -8- NC: 2026:KHC:6356 CRL.A No. 798 of 2014 HC-KAR Code and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act. The State has not preferred any appeal against the said acquittal
9. The Genesis of the Case arise out of the complaint-Exhibit P1 Filed by PW1. The same reads as under:
" ೕಲ ಂಡ ಾಸದ ಾಸ ದು ಾಂಕ:15-12-2011 ಮ ಾ ಹ
3:00 UÀAmÉ ಸಮಯದ ನಮ ಾ ಮದ ಸ ಾನ ೆ ಮಂಜೂ#ಾ$ರು ಸ ೆ&
62ರ ೋ'ಕ(ೆ) ೋ*ಾಳ ,ಾಗದ ನಮ ಾ ಮದ ಾ.ಗ ಾದ
#ಾಮ ಂ ೇ ೌಡರ ಮಗ ಆನಂದ ಕೃಷ3 ಎಂಬುವವರು ಉಳ8
*ಾಡು9:ದgÀÄ ಆಗ ಾನು ಅ ೆ <ೋ$ ಸ ಾನ ೆ ಮಂಜೂ#ಾ$ರುವ
,ಾಗವನು ಏತ ೆ ಉಳ8 *ಾಡು9: ೕಯ ಎಂದು ೇ?ದ ೆ ಆನಂದ
ಕೃಷ3ನು ,ೋ#ಾ$ @ಮ ಅಪBನ ಆ.: ಅಲ ನಮ ಜCೕನು ಅದ ೆ ಉ? *ಾಡು9:Dೇ ೆ ಎಂದು ನನ ನು ಅ ಾಚ ಶಬಗ?ಂದ Gೈದು ,ಾ9@ಂದ ೆ *ಾIದ ಅJೇ K ದ ಒಂದು ಕಲನು Mೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ನನ ಹNೆಯ ೕJೆ <ೊOೆದು ರಕ: ಾಯ *ಾIದ ಆಗ ಅJೇ ಇದ ಆನಂದ ಕೃಷ3ರವರ ತಮ ಮಂಜು ಾಥರವರು ಬಂದು ಈತ£Àನು KಡGೇIS ಎಂದು ಈತನನು ಇJೇ ಮು$. ಎಂದು ನನ ನು ಎ ೆDಾI ಕಲು ಗುOೆTಯ ೕJೆ ತ?U ಮಂಜು ಾಥ ೌಡ ಮತು: ೕ#ೇಶ ರವರು ಸಹ ಒOೆದು ೋವVಂಟು *ಾIದರು ಆಗ ಅ ೆ ಬಂದ Xಟ)ಣ3 ಎಂಬುವವರ ಮಗ ಶಂಕರ ಎಂಬುವವರು ಬಂದು ಜಗಳ *ಾಡು9:ದ ನಮ ಗಳನು KI. ಸ*ಾ ಾನ *ಾI ಏ(ಾ$ದ ನನ ನು 108 ಆಂಬುJೆZ[ ನ ಕ#ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು X\Mೆ[ ೊI.ದರು ಈಗ ಾನು ಾಗಮಂಗಲ ಸ ಾ&S ಆಸBMೆ ಯ X\Mೆ[ ಪOೆಯು9:ದು ನನ ನು <ೊOೆದು ರಕ: ಾಯಪI. ,ಾ9 <ೆಸರು ]Iದು Gೈ ರುವ ೕಲ ಂಡವರ ೕJೆ ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ ಜರು$ಸGೇ ಾ$ ೋS ೆ."
10. On the basis of the complaint filed by PW1, police have registered case in crime No.230 of 2011 for the offence under -9- NC: 2026:KHC:6356 CRL.A No. 798 of 2014 HC-KAR Sections 506, 504, 324 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act and submitted First Information Report against accused 1 to 3 on 16th November, 2011 at 8:35 am. At the time of filing charge- sheet, the investigating officer has given up the name of accused No.2-Manjunatha Gowda, as accusation against him is not proved during investigation. The same is not challenged by the complainant. With regard to offence under sections 323, 324 and 504, PW1 has deposed in his evidence that accused No.1 has assaulted him with stone on the upper side of his left eye. Then accused No.3-Veeresha instigated him and he pushed PW1. Whereas, in the complaint it is stated that both Manjunatha Gowda and Veeresha have dragged him on heap of stones and assaulted him.
11. PW2-Shankara, said to be the eye-witness, has deposed in his evidence that accused Manjunatha Gowda has tried to pacify and separate them from the fight.
12. PW3-Shivalinga has deposed in his evidence as to the mahazar conducted by police as per Exhibit P2 and seizure of MOs4 and 5.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6356 CRL.A No. 798 of 2014 HC-KAR
13. PW4-Dhanapal has deposed as to seizure of clothes and mahazar-Exhibit P3.
14. PW5-Dr.Krishnamurthy has deposed as to the examination of injured who has come to the hospital with the history of assault by Veeresha, Anandkrishna and Manje Gowda.
15. PW6-SL Channabasavanna, Inspector of Police and PW7- HN Vinay, Police Sub-Inspector have deposed as to their respective investigation.
16. Exhibit P4 is the wound certificate pertaining to PW1- Javaraiah, which reveals that PW1 was admitted to the hospital with history of assault at about 2:30 pm on 15th December, 2011 near their land at B Shettihalli by Veeresh, Anandkrishna and Manje Gowda. The injuries found as per Exhibit P4 are as under:
1. A linear c/w of size 1 CM, skin depth over Right side of forehead.
2. A linear c/w of size 1.5 CM, skin depth over center of forehead.
3. A linear c/w of size 0.5 CM over left side of forehead.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6356 CRL.A No. 798 of 2014 HC-KAR
4. A linear c/w of size 2 CM, skin depth over upper margin of forehead
17. The Doctor has opined that the injuries are simple in nature.
18. PW1 has not whispered anything against accused Manje Gowda, who has actively participated in the alleged incident as shown in Exhibit P1. PW2 has also not whispered anything against Manje Gowda. PW5 Dr. Krishnamurthy has deposed that the injured was admitted to hospital with the history of assault by Veeresh, Anandkrishna and Manje Gowda with stone. The injuries found in exhibit are cut injuries. Mahazar- Exhibit P2 reveals that investigating officer has seized a handful stone on 16th December, 2011 and inserted the same in PF No.186 of 2011. Exhibit P8-P.F.No.186 of 2011 is submitted to the Court on 17th December, 2011. The delay in submitting the report of seizure is not explained by the prosecution. As per Exhibit P2, at the time of mahazar, Shankara has produced the stone before the Police. If the accused had used MO1 for assaulting PW1, PW1 would have sustained lacerated or contusion injuries. But the wound certificate shows that the PW1 has sustained CLW (cut lacerated wound). Exhibit P5 is
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6356 CRL.A No. 798 of 2014 HC-KAR the certificate of examination of materials examined, i.e. sample mud, banian, knicker, etc. Serology report reveals as under:
"The cuttings and scrapings of the blood stained exhibits were marked as 1a, 2a, 4a and 5a were subjected to serological analysis. The origin was determined by the gel diffusion method, cross overelectrophoresis and the blood grouping was determined by the absorption elution method. The results of the serological examination are furnished below:
OPINION
1. Presence of blood was detected in Article Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5.
2. Presence of blood was not detected in article No.3.
3. Items 1, 2, 4 and 5 were stained with human blood.
4. Items 1, 4 and 5 were stained with 'O' blood group.
5. The blood grouping of the blood stains in Item 2 could not be determined as the results of the test were inconclusive."
19. The presence of blood on article items No.1, 2, 4 and 5 are not stained with the blood of the injured. The investigating officer has not taken any steps to collect sample blood of the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6356 CRL.A No. 798 of 2014 HC-KAR injured for examination. Therefore, report-Exhibit P5 will not be of any help to the case of the prosecution.
20. During the course of cross-examination, PW1 has clearly admitted that CW2-Shankara belongs to their community. However, he has admitted in his examination-in-chief that the accused have lodged complaint against him. Further, he has admitted that the case is pending against him in OS No.225 of 2009 in Nagamangala Court and the accused has obtained injunction order against him. Being aggrieved by this order, he has preferred appeal before the appellate court and the same is also dismissed on 20th December, 2013 with regard to property No.32 (old number 62).
21. PW2-Shankara has admitted that as on the date of incident, case was registered against PW1-Javaraiah.
22. PW4-Dhanapal has deposed that he and Shankara have filed case before the High Court against this accused regarding the disputed property. During the course of cross-examination of PW2, he has clearly admitted that his elder brother-Shivanna was the President of Zilla Panchayat, and now he is the member of Zilla Panchayat and the elder brother of Shivanna,
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6356 CRL.A No. 798 of 2014 HC-KAR i.e. Javaraiah, has filed case against the accused regarding the disputed site.
23. The evidence placed before the court discloses that there is a civil dispute between the accused and complainant. Additionally, it is also admitted that on the date of the incident accused have also filed complaint against them. In this regard, there is a case and counter case registered.
24. The outpatient slip dated 16th December, 2011 issued by Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Mandya reveals that Anandakrishna was admitted to the hospital on 16th December, 2011 with the history of assault on 15th December, 2011 and he has sustained injuries. The investigating officer has filed separate charge-sheet in this regard. Since there is a civil dispute pending regarding the land in Survey No.62 of B.Shettihalli between the accused and the complainant, the testimony of PW1 and 2 cannot be believed without any supporting evidence of independent witnesses. Investigating officer has not examined any independent witnesses. Even he has not disclosed in his evidence as to the case and counter case registered against
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6356 CRL.A No. 798 of 2014 HC-KAR PW1 and others. Under the said circumstances, it is not safe to convict the accused solely on the interested testimony of PWs1 and 2 and also the medical evidence, which are not consistent to the evidence of PW1.
25. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any cogent convincing and trustworthy legal evidence before the court against accused for the alleged offence. The trial court has not properly appreciated the material on record and convicted the accused, which is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, I answer the point that arose for consideration, in the negative.
26. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed;
ii) Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 23rd July, 2014 passed in Spl.C.No.33 of 2012 by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge at Mandya, is set aside;
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6356 CRL.A No. 798 of 2014 HC-KAR
iii) Accused are acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 504, 323 and 324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code;
iv) Registry to send the copy of this judgment along with the trial court records to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41