The State of Karnataka v. Sri. Shivakumar

ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED

05.10.2024 PASSED IN S.C.NO.169/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA, BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL; AND (C) CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 324, 354(B), 504, 506 AND 307 OF IPC IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment dated 05.10.2024 passed by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar in S.C.No.169/2023, acquitting the accused/respondent of the offences punishable under Section 324, 307, 354(B), 504 and 506 of IPC.

¶2Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the material on record.

¶3There is a delay of 275 days in preferring the appeal. I.A.No.1/2026 is filed to condone the delay.

¶4In brief, it is the case of prosecution that on account of previous enmity, on 10.01.2021 at about 4.00 p.m., the accused having consumed alcohol, started abusing the complainant in filthy language and quarrelled with her. When she questioned him as to why he is defecating and urinating in the surrounding area, with an intention to kill her, he assaulted on her head with a sickle. When her daughter Jayalakshmi tried to rescue her, he pulled her saree and assaulted on her head with a brick piece and threatened both of them with dire consequences.

¶5Charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 324, 307, 354

(B), 504 and 506 of IPC, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to tried.

¶6Before the trial Court, prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses and got marked 19 documents and 6 material objects to establish its case.

¶7Learned Session Judge on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, vide impugned judgment acquitted the accused, which is under challenge by the State.

¶8It is the contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader that in this case PWs.1 and 2 are the injured and the injuries sustained by them is spoken by the doctor examined as PW8. She contended that the complainant examined as PW.1 has sustained a lacerated wound over the right parietal region of skull measuring 7 x 2 x 1.5 cms and her daughter examined as PW2 has sustained a lacerated wound over the occipital region of the skull measuring 4 x 3 x 1.5 cms. She contended that both the injured have supported the case of prosecution and their evidence is further supported by the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 and therefore, contended that the judgment

of acquittal passed by the trial Court is without appreciating the said material evidence adduced by the prosecution.

¶9The incident is alleged to have taken place on

10.01.2021 at about 4.00 p.m. It is the case of prosecution that the accused, on account of previous enmity, quarrelled with the complainant and her daughter, abused them in filthy language and assaulted the complainant with a sickle on her head and also her daughter with a brick piece and caused injuries to them.

¶10The complainant is examined as PW1 and her daughter is examined as PW2. Both of them have stated that the accused was intoxicated and he abused and quarrelled with them and assaulted them with a sickle and a brick piece and caused injuries to them and also threatened to take away their lives.

¶11PW8 is the doctor who treated both the injured. As per the wound certificates issued by him, both the

injured have sustained simple injuries. It has come in the evidence that the accused is the neighbour of the complainant and there was previous enmity. It is alleged that the accused used to consume alcohol and urinate in the surrounding area. In view of the said enmity, it is necessary to evaluate the evidence of the injured and see as to whether there is any corroborative evidence.

¶12The prosecution has got examined PW3 and PW4 who are none other than the sons of the complainant. Both the said witnesses though stated that they have seen the incident, in the cross-examination it is elicited from them that they came to know about the incident subsequently and therefore, they are not the eye witnesses to the incident.

¶13The prosecution has got examined two independent witnesses cited as CWs4 and 5 in the chargesheet as PWs.7 and 5 respectively. Both the said witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.

¶14In this case, the prosecution has got marked Ex.P19, the wound certificate pertaining to the accused. Though, PW2 has stated that the accused sustained the said injury by fall, taking note of the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, it cannot be said that injuries were on account of fall. As per Ex.P19, the injury certificate pertaining to the accused, marked through PW.11, the accused has sustained injuries on his face, lips and other parts of the body. In Ex.P19, it is mentioned that he has sustained those injuries on account of assault. No investigation was conducted in that regard. The injury sustained by the accused has been suppressed by the prosecution witnesses. Further, in the cross-examination of PW8-Doctor, he has stated that the injury sustained by PW1 and PW2 can be caused if a person falls and rolls on the ground.

¶15Appreciating the above aspects the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences alleged

against him beyond reasonable doubt. We do not find any good grounds to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, I.A. is dismissed.

Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2284 OF 2025 (A) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GUNDLUPET TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP) AND: SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE NAGEGOWDA @ BELLAPPA, 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NO.22ND WARD, HOSURU VILLAGE, GUNDLUPET TOWN-571 111. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 419 (1 AND 3) OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO: (A) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 05.10.2024 PASSED IN S.C.NO.169/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA ACQUITTING THE APPELLANT FOR THE CHARGED OFFENCES; (B) SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND