Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Maradeppa S/O. Kenchappa Holajogi on 17 April, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No.100523/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100523 OF 2021 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
RATTIHALLI POLICE STATION,
HIREKERUR CIRCLE,
DISTRICT HAVERI-581110
THROUGH THE ADDL.
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH.
Digitally signed by
V N BADIGER
Location: HIGH
...APPELLANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.)
AND:
1. MARADEPPA S/O. KENCHAPPA HOLAJOGI
AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE WORK,
R/O. RATTIHALLI, JEERAGI ONI,
HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581110.
2. HALAWWA W/O. KENCHAPPA HOLAJOGI
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE WORK,
R/O. RATTIHALLI, JEERAGI ONI,
HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581110.
3. SANTOSH S/O. KENCHAPPA HOLAJOGI
AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE WORK,
R/O. RATTIHALLI, JEERAGI ONI,
HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581110.
-2-
CRL.A No.100523/2021
4. GEETA D/O. KENCHAPPA HOLAJOGI
AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE WORK,
R/O. RATTIHALLI, JEERAGI ONI,
HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581110.
5. PARASAPPA S/O. KENCHAPPA HOLAJOGI
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE WORK,
R/O. RATTIHALLI, JEERAGI ONI,
HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO, GRANT LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT HAVERI SITTING AT RANEBENNUR IN
S.C.NO.22/2017 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED BY THE II
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT HAVERI SITTING
AT RANEBENNUR IN S.C.NO.22/2017 AND TO CONVICT THE
SENTENCE THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307,
504 AND 506 R/W. SECTION 149 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 21.03.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-3-
CRL.A No.100523/2021
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) State has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 25th April 2019 passed in SC No.22 of 2017 by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge at Haveri sitting at Ranibennur (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial court.
3. Facts leading to this appeal are that Rattihalli Police filed charge-sheet against accused 1 to 5 for commission of offence punishable and Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504 & 506, read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant and accused are neighbours, there is a common road between the houses of complainant and accused for ingress and egress. It is also alleged that there is a dispute between accused and the complainant in respect of the said road. On 11th March 2015 at about 7:30 AM, when the complainant, in order to install pipeline for water connection to her house, was digging a trench with the help of CWs9 & 10 on the road situated in front -4- CRL.A No.100523/2021 of the house of the accused, at that time, accused No.1 came to the said spot, abused the complainant in filthy language and questioned the complainant as to whether she has obtained permission to get water connection. Complainant told the accused that she has got permission to get water connection and hence digging the trench. At that time, accuse No.1 again abused the complainant in filthy language by saying that who has given the permission to dig the road and started quarrel with the complainant and assaulted the complainant with hands. Accused 2 to 5 went to the said spot obstructed CWs9 & 10 from digging and stopped the work. Then accused 2 to 5 also abused the complainant in filthy language and accused No.2 assaulted the complainant with his hands. It is also alleged by the prosecution that when CW4 tried to pacify the commotion, all the accused abused CW4 in filthy language by stating that she, having deserted her husband, doing all these acts, and if her murder is committed the quarrel between the two families would find peace. Accused No.5 with an intention to commit murder of CW4, assaulted CW4 with a crowbar on right side of her chest and caused grievous injuries. Accused No.3 also assaulted CW4 with a stone on her back, hands and legs. Other accused also assaulted CW4 with their hands and -5- CRL.A No.100523/2021 caused bodily pain. Accused also committed criminal intimidation by giving life threat to CW4 and the complainant. Thus, accused committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506, read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
5. After filing charge-sheet, cognizance was taken against accused and case was registered in Crime No.548 of 2015, and after committal of the case to the Sessions Court, case came to be registered in SC No.22 of 2017. After appearance of the accused, upon hearing, charges were framed for alleged commission of offences the same was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them. Accused having understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To substantiate its case, prosecution, in all, examined fifteen witnesses as PWs1 to 15, marked eleven documents as per Exhibits P1 to P11 and the material object crowbar was marked as MO1. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused denied all the incriminating evidences appearing against them, but have not -6- CRL.A No.100523/2021 chosen to adduce any defence evidence on their behalf. Having heard on both sides, the trial Court acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of acquittal, State has preferred this appeal.
7. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri M.G. Gundawade appearing for the State, would submit that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record and the same is not sustainable in the eye of Law. He would submit that the learned Sessions Judge committed an error in disbelieving the evidence of PW1 who has conducted spot mahazar and the Panchas who has supported the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that PW2, who is the injured, has also supported the case of prosecution and has clearly deposed as to the act of the accused. PW3 who is the victim and injured, also supported the case of prosecution and deposed that accused have assaulted her with an intention to commit her murder. PWs2 & 3 are the injured witnesses and their evidences have been corroborated by the evidence of PWs6, 8, 11, 12 and 14. Though, PWs4 & 10 are eye-witnesses to the incident, they have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. PWs7 & 9 are the labourers who were digging the -7- CRL.A No.100523/2021 trench, have also not supported the case of prosecution. Dr. Lokesh Kumar is the Medical Officer who is examined as PW13. Though the evidence of Doctor fully collaborated to the testimony of PW3, the trial Court has ignored the said fact and committed an error in acquitting the accused. It is further submitted that evidence of independent witnesses PWs6, 12 & 14 has been corroborated with evidence of injured and the same has been totally ignored by the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment. It is submitted that if the evidence of PWs2 & 3 who are the injured witnesses are taken note of, the testimony of injured witnesses stand on a higher footing than the testimony of other witnesses. He would submit that corroboration is necessary only when the witness is partially reliable and partially not reliable. But in the present case, the injured have categorically stated about the incident and even though there are ample evidence to show that accused have committed the alleged offences, the same has been totally ignored by the court below while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. Learned Additional SPP would further submit that the accused have not explained the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case while examining them under Section 313 of the Code of -8- CRL.A No.100523/2021 Criminal Procedure. Further, the trial Court has ignored all the prosecution witnesses and erred in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the appeal.
8. As against this, Sri Avinash Banakar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5-accused supported the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and submitted that the trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, has passed the judgment and order of acquittal and there are no grounds for interference. Hence, he sought to dismiss the appeal.
9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the materials placed before us, the following points would arise for our consideration:
(1) Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from legal infirmities requiring this Court to intercede?
(2) What order?
10. Our answer to the above points would be:
Point No.1: in the negative;-9- CRL.A No.100523/2021
Point No.2: as per final order Regarding Point No.1:
11. Before adverting to the actual facts of the case and appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to refer the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope and power of Appellate Court in appeal against the order of acquittal.
12. In the case of MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI & OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 676, at paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is held thus:
"23. While considering the scope of power of the appellate court in an appeal against the order of acquittal, after referring to various judgments, in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007)4 SCC 415, this Court summarised the principle as under:-
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it
- 10 -CRL.A No.100523/2021
may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
13. In the case of MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS reported in 2019 SCC ONLINE 69, at paragraph 16 of the judgment it is held as under:
- 11 -CRL.A No.100523/2021
"16. The High Court in the present case was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. In such a case, it is well settled that the High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because it opines that a different view is possible or even preferable. The High Court, in other words, should not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because two views are possible. The interference of the High Court in such cases is governed by well-established principles. According to these principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence by the trial court is capricious or its conclusions are without evidence that the High Court may reverse an order of acquittal. The High Court may be justified in interfering where it finds that the order of acquittal is not in accordance with law and that the approach of the trial court has led to a miscarriage of justice. ..."
14. In the case of HARI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in 2000 SCC ONLINE 933, at paragraph 4 of the judgment, it is observed thus:
"4. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan on the other hand contended that the power of the High Court while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal is in no way different from the power while hearing an appeal against conviction and the Court, therefore was fully justified in re-appreciating the entire evidence, upon which the order of acquittal was based. The High Court having examined the reasons of the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of
- 12 -CRL.A No.100523/2021
PWs 6 & 7 and having arrived at the conclusion, that those reasons are in the realm of conjectures and there has been gross miscarriage of justice and the mis- appreciation of the evidence on record is the basis for acquittal, was fully entitled to set aside an order of acquittal and no error can be said to have been committed. It is too well settled that the power of the High Court, while hearing an appeal against an acquittal is as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction and it had full power to re- appreciate the entire evidence, but if two views on the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal, merely because it feels that it would sitting as a trial court, have taken the other view. While re- appreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the learned trial Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice...."
15. In the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KISTOORA RAM reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE 684, at paragraph 8 of the judgment it is held as under:
- 13 -CRL.A No.100523/2021
"8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all."
16. In the case of MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2016)10 SCC 220, at paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is observed thus:
"12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a competent court after a full-fledged trial, and once the trial court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on the appellate court while dealing with the appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the power of the appellate court to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon which the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a conclusion."
- 14 -
CRL.A No.100523/2021
17. We have examined the material placed before us. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant and accused are neighbours having a common road between their houses for ingress and egress. It is also alleged that there is a dispute between accused and the complainant in respect of the said road. On 11th March 2015 at about 7:30 AM, when the complainant with the help of CWs9 & 10, was digging a trench on the road situated in front of the house of the accused, at that time, accused No.1 came there and abused the complainant in filthy language and questioned the complainant as to whether she has obtained permission to get water connection. Complainant told the accused that she has got permission to get water connection and hence digging the trench. At that time, accuse No.1 again abused the complainant in filthy language and started quarrel with the complainant and assaulted the complainant with hands. Accused 2 to 5 obstructed CWs9 & 10 from digging and stopped the work. Accused 2 to 5 also abused the complainant in filthy language and accused No.2 assaulted the complainant with his hands. When CW4 tried to pacify the commotion, all the accused abused CW4 in filthy language by stating that she, having deserted her husband, doing all these acts, and if her
- 15 -
CRL.A No.100523/2021murder is committed the quarrel between the two families would come to an end. Accused No.5 with an intention to commit murder of CW4, assaulted CW4 with a crowbar on right side of her chest and caused grievous injuries. Accused No.3 also assaulted CW4 with a stone on her back, hands and legs. Other accused also assaulted CW4 with their hands and caused bodily pain. Accused also committed criminal intimidation by giving life threat to CW4 and the complainant. Thus, accused committed alleged offences.
18. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined fifteen witness as PWs1 to 15 and marked eleven documents as Exhibits P1 to P11 and one material object as MO1.
19. CW1-Gangamma Hirekerur is said to be the complainant who is examined as PW2. She has deposed in her evidence that the house of the accused situate towards the southern side of their house and there is a road for ingress and egress, and they are in cordial terms with the accused. The complainant had no tap water connection to her house and hence obtained permission from the concerned authority and was digging a trench to lay the water pipeline. At that time, accused No.1-Maradappa came and questioned as to who has
- 16 -
CRL.A No.100523/2021given permission to take water connection. Along with accused Halavva, all the five accused assaulted her. Then her daughter Parvathi came to the spot. Accused abused her also by stating "UÀAqÀ£Àß ©lÄÖ §A¢¢ÃAiÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ", and accused No.5-Parasappa stabbed her daughter with crowbar on the right side of her chest and caused bleeding injury, while other accused caught hold of Parvathi. Then they took her daughter to Government Hospital, Rattihalli. One Raghu and Sannappa came and rescued. Then she lodged the complaint with the police as per complaint Exhibit P3; she has identified crowbar MO1. This witness is treated as partly hostile witness and was cross examined by the public prosecutor. During her cross- examination, she has admitted that the accused No.3-Santhosh assaulted to Parvathi with a stone on her backside. However, she has admitted that when Parvati screamed CW9-Parasappa, CW10-Hanumanthappa, CW6-Prakash, CW7-another Prakash and CW12-Yallavva came and pacified the commotion.
20. CW4-Parvathi Satagi, said to be the injured is examined as PW3. She has deposed in her evidence that Gangamma is her grandmother. She knows CW5-Viresh. Her father had two wives-Yallamma and Shanthamma and all are residing under the same roof. She knows all the accused. Their
- 17 -
CRL.A No.100523/2021house, their grandmother's house and the houses of accused are situated side-by-side. She has deposed that they have obtained necessary permission from the authorities to get tap- water connection to their house. On 11th March 2015 at about 7:30 AM, her grandmother was getting the trench dug by Hanumanthappa and Basappa on the main road for the purpose of laying water pipeline. At that time, accused No.1 came and questioned as to whether Gangamma had obtained license and abused her in filthy language as "«ÄAræ", so also, accused No.1 assaulted her grandmother and the rest of the accused stopped the digging work. When she told that they are digging the trench only after obtaining permission from the concerned authority, accused abused her by stating "F «ÄAræ UÀAqÀ£Àß ©lÄÖ E°èUÉ §AzÀÄ §ºÀ¼À ¢üªÀiÁPÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ¼É". The accused assaulted her grandmother. Then, accused No.5-Parasappa stabbed her on the right side of her chest with an intention to commit her murder. She has sustained severe bleeding injury, and then upon she screaming, her grandmother also screamed. Accused gave blow to her with a stone. Prakash, Yellamma, Renuka, Veeresh, Harish, Parasappa, and Hanumanthappa intervened and rescued them. Accused also threatened them that they will finish them and bury in the same trench. Then she was shifted
- 18 -
CRL.A No.100523/2021to Government Hospital, Rattihalli. Later, she was shifted to Davangere Hospital in an ambulance for higher treatment. Her grandmother-Gangamma lodged complaint to police. She took treatment in the hospital for about a month. She has identified crowbar MO1 which was used to commit the offence. She has also deposed that since there is a dispute as to pathway, accused has assaulted them.
21. CW5-Veeresh Admani, CW9-Parasappa Holajogi, CW10-Hanumanthappa Sunagar, CW11-Harish Admani, said to be the eye-witnesses, have been examined as PWs4, 8 9 and 10 respectively. All these witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and during their cross-examination made by the Public Prosecutor after treating them hostile witnesses with the permission of the court, they have categorically denied as to the statement said to have recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure marked as Exhibits P4 to P7 respectively.
22. CW6-Prakash Hirekerur examined as PW5. He has partly supported the case of the prosecution. He has deposed in his evidence as to dispute between the accused and the complainant regarding digging of a trench. In this regard,
- 19 -
CRL.A No.100523/2021commotion took place between the accused and the complainant. Accused No.1-Maradappa abused his elder sister Gangamma as "«ÄAræ" and "ºÁzÀgÀVwÛ" and other accused obstructed them to do the digging work. All the accused assaulted her elder sister and abused her. When his daughter Parvathi intervened to separate the galata, accused abused parvati stating "¤Ã£ÀÄ UÀAqÀ£À£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ E°è §AzÀÄ ¢üªiÀ ÁPÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ E¢ÝÃAiÀÄ, ¤£ÀߣÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁr©mÉÛ £ÀªÀÄä dUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄVAiÀÄÄvÀÛzÉ, J¯Áè DUÉÆÃzÀÄ FPɬÄAzÀ¯ÉÃ" and with an intention to commit her murder, accused No.5 stabbed Parvathi on right side of her chest. When Parvathi fell down, his elder sister Gangamma screamed that accused will kill Parvati. Then he, his wife Yellamma, Renuka went to the spot and at that time, Hanumanthappa, Parasappa, Harisha and Veeresha separated them. Then accused threatened all of them, stating that they will take away their lives. Then his elder sister Gangamma shifted Parvathi to Government Hospital, Rattihalli and later lodged complaint with the Police. He has identified MO1 crowbar. This witness is treated as partly hostile witness and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. During the cross-examination, he has admitted that accused No.5 assaulted Parvathi with hands.
- 20 -
CRL.A No.100523/2021
23. CW7-Prakash Hasawale examined as PW6. He is said to be the eye-witness to the incident. He has deposed in his evidence that there is a dispute between the accused and the complainant with regard to digging of trench to take water connection. Accused No.1-Maradappa questioned as to digging of the trench without permission. Then CW1 said that they have obtained permission. To that accused No.1 abused CW1 in filthy language. He also pushed CW1, by then accused 2 to 5 came to the spot and abused CW1 in filthy language CW4- Prakash, gave blow to her. Accused No.5, abused Parvathi in filthy language that "FPÉ UÀAqÀ£Àß ©lÄÖ §AzÀÄ J¯Áè FPɬÄAzÀ DUÀÄvÁÛ EzÉ"
and stabbed her on the right side of her chest causing leading injury, which made her to fall. Then Gangamma, Prakash, Yellamma and Renuka took Parvathi Hospital. Accused 2 to 5 threatened them stating that they will bury them in the same trench. The commotion was pacified by Prakash, Gangamma, Yellamma, Hanumanthappa and Parasappa. CW8-Renukavva has taken the injured to Government Hospital, Rattihalli. He has identified MO1-crowbar.
24. CW8-Renukavva Goravara examined as PW8. She is said to be the eye-witness to the incident. She has partly supported the case of the prosecution. She has deposed as to
- 21 -
CRL.A No.100523/2021the act of accused as stated by PW6. She has not deposed in her evidence as to the life threat given by the accused, but during her cross-examination, she has stated that accused have given life threat to all of them.
25. CW13-Mruthunjayaswamy Basavanalmath, is examined as PW12. He is an Ex-service man. He has deposed in his evidence that on 11th March 2015 at about 7:30 AM when he was proceeding in front of the house of complainant, CWs9 and 10 were digging trench on the government Road to install pipeline that accused No.1 came and abused CW1. Gangamma has told that she had obtained permission from the authority. But the accused assaulted Gangamma. Then she screamed. At that time, Parvathi came to the spot, accused No.1 abused her "FPÉ UÀAqÀ£Àß ©lÄÖ §A¢zÁݼÉ, FPÉUÉ ºÉÆqɬÄj". Accused No.5-Parasappa stabbed her with crowbar on the right side of her chest, causing bleeding injury. Then he has separated the galata. Further, accused threatened them that they will finish them and bury all of them in the trench. Later, Gangamma shifted injured Parvathi to hospital.
26. CW16-Dr. Lokeshkumar, Medical Officer who has examined the injured Parvathi, is examined as PW13. He has
- 22 -
CRL.A No.100523/2021deposed as to the injuries found on the injured and issuance of certificate Exhibit P8. He has deposed as to the issuance of Exhibit P1 as per the information given to the Investigating Officer.
27. CW14-Hanumanthappa Gonappanavara is examined as PW14. He has partly supported the case of the prosecution. During the course of cross-examination made by the learned Public Prosecutor treating him as partly hostile witness, he has admitted the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer.
28. CW3-Channappa Admani, panch witness examined as PW1, has deposed as to the mahazar conducted by the Police as per Exhibit P1.
29. CW17-Kallappa Hottigowdra, retired Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police, has deposed as to the investigation conducted by him.
30. A careful examination of the entire evidence placed before us, clarifies that the complainant has stated that accused assaulted PW2-complainant with their hands on all over her body. In this regard, she has not taken any treatment. The reason for not taking treatment is also not explained by PW2 or by the Investigating Officer. With
- 23 -
CRL.A No.100523/2021regard to injury caused to PW3-Parvathi Satagi is concerned, it is stated in the complaint Exhibit P1 that accused No.5- Parasappa stabbed PW4 with crowbar on the right side of her chest causing severe bleeding injury. One Santhosh gave blow with a stone on her back and also on the other parts of her body. PW2, Gangamma has not deposed in her evidence as to the assault by the accused-Santosh with stone on the back of PW4 Parvathi. But she has deposed that accused NO.5- Parasappa stabbed her granddaughter Parvathi with crowbar. During her cross-examination, she has deposed that accused NO.5-Parasappa assaulted her daughter with front side of crowbar and other accused caught hold of Parvathi. PW3 injured Parvathi Sagi, has deposed that accused No.5- Parasappa stabbed her with crowbar on right side of her chest causing bleeding injury. During her cross-examination, she has deposed that crowbar is not sharp edged. Accused has not stabbed but assaulted with MO1. PW5-Prakash Hirekerur, PW6 Prakash Hawaale, PW8,-Renukavva Goravara, PW12- Mruthyunjayaswamy Basavanalmath, PW14, Hanumanthappa Gonappanavar, have all deposed that accused No.5-Parasappa stabbed PW4 with crowbar on right side of her chest. PW11-
- 24 -
CRL.A No.100523/2021Yallavva Hirekerur has deposed that accused No.1 assaulted PW4 with MO1 on right side of her chest.
31. Exhibit P1-spot mahazar reveals that on 11th March 2015, Police have ceased one iron bar worth ₹10/- at spot which was shown by the injured. This mahazar was conducted between 11.00 and 11:45 AM. The wound certificate Exhibit P8 reveals that the injured Parvathi Satagi came to hospital with Raghavendra Haravishettar of Rattihalli with the history of assault by chisel and the Doctor has examined her and opined as to the injuries shown in exhibit P8-wound certificate. This injured was examined on the same day at about 8:15 AM. PW3-Parvathi has deposed in her evidence that PW13-Dr. Lokesh Kumar who has extended treatment to the injured has deposed that the injured was admitted an inpatient in the hospital for 19 days. She has also deposed that after giving first aid, the injured was shifted to SSIMS Hospital Davangere for higher treatment. Therefore, it is crystal clear that soon after the incident, the injured was shifted to hospital and only after 19 days she was discharged from the hospital. However, Exhibit P1-spot mahazar reveals that the injured PW3-Parvathi has shown the iron bar which was used to commit the offence, which is contrary to the evidence of Medical Officer as well as
- 25 -
CRL.A No.100523/2021injured PW3. Therefore, it is crystal clear that PW3 has not shown MO1 to the police as stated in Exhibit P1-spot mahazar, because by that time, she was taking treatment in the hospital. In addition to this, in the cross-examination of PW15, the Investigating Officer has deposed that the injured Parvathi was admitted to Government Hospital, Rattihalli. She has examined her only 08th April, 2015 and till then the injured was not in a position to speak and has regained consciousness only on 08th April, 2015. Further, in the wound certificate Exhibit P8, it is shown that the injured assaulted with chisel and not with a crowbar. A chisel and a wooden crowbar are entirely different tools. Though the police have seized the crowbar at the spot on the date of incident as per MO1, they have not mentioned as to the width and length of the crowbar and also as to the the nature of weapon. However, the name of the material object is shown as iron rod. In Exhibit P10 which is examination report issued by the Medical Officer, Dr Lokesh Kumar, the description of the weapon is mentioned as a follows:
"Examination Report Instrument: Iron rod weapon Description: Above mentioned weapon is made of iron material, pole like round in contour which has one blunt end + one sharp end.
- 26 -CRL.A No.100523/2021
Length of weapon: 79 cm.
weight of the weapon: 1 kilo 350 grams (1350 grams) circumference in the middle: 5.7 cm.
sharp end width: 1.8 cm.
blunt end diameter: 2.9 cm."
32. The said weapon was examined on 16th May, 2015, i.e. after a lapse of more than six months from the date of seizure of the iron crowbar. The doctor has opined that the wounds described in the wound certificate of Mrs. Parvathi Malatesh Satagi dated 22nd April 2015 could be caused by the abovementioned iron rod weapon.
33. If really the police had seized the MO1-crowbar, the Investigating Officer would have mentioned the description of the instrument in Exhibit P1 Panchama. But he has not done so. PW13-Dr. Lokesh Kumar has not deposed anything in his evidence as to the weapon used for the assault. Even he has not deposited that the injured came with the history of assault with chisel. He has also not deposed that injured was assaulted with a crowbar. The name of the accused also not disclosed in the certificate or in the evidence of PW13-Dr. Lokesh Kumar. Though the injured was admitted to the hospital with the history of assault by a chisel, the concerned Medical Officer has
- 27 -
CRL.A No.100523/2021not registered the same as medico-legal case. The Investigating officer has not explained anything in this regard. The case sheet maintained by the concerned hospital is also not produced by the Investigating Officer. The reason for non- production of case sheet pertaining to the injured is also not explained by the Investigating Officer. If really accused No.5 had stabbed the injured with the crowbar as stated in the complaint, she would not have survived the assault. Exhibit P9-Feedback of Referred Cases issued by S.S. Institute of Medical Sciences & Research CENTRE, Davangere reveals that the chest of injured was normal, shoulder normal CT scan pelvic chest number 19082 dated 21 three 2015, normal. Wound certificate-Exhibit P8 reveals that the injured sustained deep cut laceration (oblique) 18×5×5 cm over the anterior part of right shoulder, extending into the right mammary area. Underlying pecaralis Major injury to underlying neurovascular bundle. Severe tenderness present over the right parasternal area, 5th/6th Costochandral junction. On the basis of the Feedback Report, the Doctor has opined that the chest number 19082 is normal and the injury No.2 is simple in nature and injury numberNO.1 is grievous in nature. On what basis the doctor has opened that the injury No.1 is grievous in nature
- 28 -
CRL.A No.100523/2021has not been disclosed, and the Investigating Officer has not substantiated this fact by producing the case sheet or the discharge summary etc.
34. On a careful and holistic examination of the evidence, the injury allegedly caused by the accused using MO1 (the material object weapon) raises serious and reasonable doubt with regard to both the identity of the assailant and the weapon purportedly used in the commission of the offence. The contents of Exhibit P1 - the Spot Mahazar do not align with the medical evidence, nor do they correspond with the testimonies of the complainant (PW2), the injured, and other eyewitnesses. There exist significant and material inconsistencies among these key pieces of evidence, particularly concerning the description and identification of the weapon used in the alleged incident.
35. Notably, none of the prosecution witnesses have stated that Accused No.5 stabbed the injured with an iron crowbar, as mentioned in Exhibit P9 - the Feedback of Referred Cases issued by the Casualty Medical Officer. This medical document is also inconsistent with the wound certificate, wherein the weapon is described as a chisel. This contradiction
- 29 -
CRL.A No.100523/2021between medical records further weakens the prosecution's version of events.
36. Furthermore, it is the prosecution's case that Accused No. 3 - Santosh assaulted Parvathi with a stone, causing injuries to her back. However, the stone allegedly used has not been seized or produced during the course of the investigation. The Investigating Officer has not provided any explanation for this non-seizure, which creates an additional lacuna in the prosecution's case.
37. The prosecution witnesses, particularly the material ones, have exaggerated their testimonies by stating that Accused No. 5 stabbed the injured on the right side of her chest with a crowbar and that Accused No.3 struck PW2 on her back with a stone. However, it is crucial to note that the complainant, PW2, did not mention in her examination-in-chief that Accused No.5 stabbed Parvathi with a crowbar. This crucial assertion came only during the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, wherein she merely admitted to a suggestion put forth in that regard. Such selective revelation and inconsistency in testimony raise considerable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution's case.
- 30 -
CRL.A No.100523/2021
38. In light of the above, it is apparent that there is a lack of consistency between the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the medical evidence, and the material objects allegedly used in the crime. As such, the prosecution has utterly failed to present cogent, credible, corroborative, and trustworthy evidence that can sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
39. It is also an admitted fact that there existed prior enmity between the accused and the complainant, which casts further suspicion on the motivation behind the prosecution's case. Given this background of ill-will, it is quite natural that witnesses may exaggerate their statements with the objective of falsely implicating the accused and ensuring their conviction. This possibility cannot be overlooked, particularly in light of the admissions made by PW1 during her cross-examination.
40. PW1 has candidly admitted that at the time of lodging the complaint at the Rattihalli Police Station, the accused also approached the same police station to file a counter-complaint against the complainant and others. She further admitted that the accused indeed filed a complaint against seven individuals, including the complainant, and that a
- 31 -
CRL.A No.100523/2021charge sheet has been filed in that case, which is now pending before the Hirekerur Court. PW1 also admitted that she is unaware of the contents of her own complaint and did not dictate it to the police. Rather, the complaint was prepared by the police, who obtained her Left Thumb Impression (LTM) without her fully understanding or verifying the contents.
41. Significantly, the Investigating Officer has not provided any testimony or clarification regarding the counter- complaint filed by the accused. This omission is vital, as it deprives the Court of the opportunity to consider both sides of the dispute, thus compromising the fairness and completeness of the investigation.
42. In light of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the trial Court has rightly and meticulously appreciated the evidence on record. The Court has conducted a proper and legal assessment of the facts and materials placed before it and has arrived at a well-reasoned conclusion in acquitting the accused. Upon a fresh and independent re-evaluation, re- consideration, and re-examination of the entire evidentiary record, we find no illegality, irregularity, or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Consequently, we
- 32 -
CRL.A No.100523/2021find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, point number one is answered in the negative.
Regarding point No.2:
43. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, we proceed to pause the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal dismissed.
ii) Judgment and order of acquittal dated 25th April 2019 passed in SC No.22 of 2017 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Haveri sitting at Ranibennur, is confirmed.
iii) Registry to send the copy of this judgment along with trial court records to the concerned court.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn CT-CMU