AMANULLAH KHAN S/O JAFFAR KHAN vs MOHAMMAD FAYYUM @ ABDUL FAYYUM AND ORS
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200181 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
AMANULLAH KHAN S/O JAFFAR KHAN,
NOW AGED: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. AMAN NAGAR, HAGARGA ROAD,
KALABURAGI.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.S. ASTAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHAMMAD FAYYUM @ ABDUL FAYYUM,
S/O HANEEF @ LATE MOHAMMAD HANEEF,
NOW AGED: 46 YEARS,
OCC: ENGINEER,
R/O.H.NO.7-771/A2, MIJGURI,
KALABURAGI.
2. RAMESH S/O ERAPPA DODAMANI,
NOW AGED: 29 YEARS,
OCC: JCB DRIVER,
R/O. CHOWDAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. AFZALPUR,
DIST. KALABURAGI.
Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
3. MALLIKARJUN S/O SHARANAPPA,
NOW AGED: 22 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O.DONAGAON VILLAGE,
TQ.CHITTAPUR,
DIST. KALABURAGI.
4. THE STATE THROUGH UNIVERSITY P.S.
KALABURAGI,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, ADVOCATE APPOINTED AS
AMICUS CURIAE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGA FOR R4)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT & ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED: 04.10.2016 OF
PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN S.C.NO.26/2013 AND
CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS ACCUSED HEREIN FOR THE
OFFENCES WITH WHICH THEY WERE CHARGED.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. This appeal is filed by the de-facto complainant under
Section 372 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging
the judgment of acquittal dated 04.10.2016 passed by
the Principal Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, in
S.C.No.26/2013 for the offences punishable under
Sections 504, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of
IPC.
2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are as
under:
One Amannullah Khan S/o Jafar Khan, lodged a
complaint before the police on 06.02.2011, wherein it
is alleged that accused No.1 i.e., respondent No.1
created some documents pertaining to the plots laid in
the land bearing Sy.No.30 of Hagarga village which
was belonging to poor section of the society, thereby
one Imran and others purchased the sites,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
constructed their respective houses and were residing
therein. However, accused No.1 claimed himself that
those plots were purchased by him and threatened
that in case they did not vacate from the plots, he will
demolish the houses constructed on the said plots
through JCB and take over the possession of the
same. Such being the case, on 06.02.2011 at 08:00
p.m., when the complainant was standing near the
streetlight situated near Jafar Masjid, accused No.1
brought JCB along with 6 to 7 persons in the
Ambassador Car bearing registration No.KA-32/M-
2879 and he along with two others came on a
motorcycle, parked the same in front of the house of
Mohammad Siddiqui, when accused No.1 was taking
the JCB vehicle towards the house of Mohammad
Siddiqui complainant asked accused No.1 as to why he
was taking JCB towards the house of Mohammad
Siddiqui, at that time, accused No.1 claimed that
Mohammad Siddiqui and others are not at all vacating
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
the said houses, even though, he had purchased the
same, therefore, he was taking the JCB for
demolishing the said houses. It is further alleged that
when Mohammad Siddiqui and others came to the
place of occurrence, accused No.1 abused them in
filthy language so as to murder Mohammad Siddiqui
and others, as accused No.1 abetted the driver of JCB
i.e. accused No.2 who has driven the JCB vehicle
against CW.2 to CW6, so on the instigation of accused
No.1, accused No.2 being the driver of JCB driven the
vehicle against CW.2 to 6 and, dashed and caused the
injuries to them. It is further alleged that when
complainant intervened to pacify the situation, the
accused persons threatened that they would take the
life of the complainant. On hearing the screaming
sound of the complainant, Mohammad Subhan Patel,
Mohammad Ashraf and others came to the spot,
thereby accused No.1 and his followers ran away from
the place, leaving the JCB, Ambassador car and
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
motorcycle at the place of incident. Accordingly, the
complainant lodged the complaint before the police
attached to the University Police Station, who on the
basis of such a complaint registered the case in Crime
No.28 of 2011 for the offences punishable under
Sections 504, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of
IPC. Police after investigation filed a charge sheet for
the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,
447, 504, 324, 307, 506, 427 of IPC read with Section
149 of IPC.
3. After submission of the charge sheet, the learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and
secured the presence of the accused. The copies of
the charge sheet and all other documents were
furnished to the accused by the committal Court as
required under law. After hearing regarding
committal, the learned Magistrate has committed the
case registered in C.C.No.3377 of 2011 and
C.C.No.3490 of 2012 by its order dated 08.01.2013
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
and 19.12.2013 respectively directing the accused to
face the trial for the offences as alleged against them.
4. After the records were received, the Sessions Court
registered the case in S.C.No.26 of 2013 and S.C.No.3
of 2014 and later the case registered in S.C.No.3 of
2014 came to be merged in S.C.No.26 of 2013 by
order sheet dated 14.08.2014. The Trial Court after
hearing regarding the charge, they pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined
11 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.11 and marked 11
documents as Exs.P1 to P11 and 3 material objects as
M.O.1 to 3 and closed their side. On the other hand,
accused No.1 was examined as DW.1 and marked
documents as Ex.D1 to D7.
6. The Trial Court after recording the evidence recorded
the statement of the accused under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., The case of the accused is that of total denial
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
and contended that there are civil disputes pending
between them. To substantiate the same, accused
produced the documents marked as Exs.D1 to D7 i.e.
the certified copy of the order sheet in S.C.No.34 of
2013; certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.313 of
2011; certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.215 of
2011; certified Copy of the plaint in O.S.No.507 of
2009 and certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.263 of
2011; Ex.D6 is the original declaration; Ex. D7 are the
photographs, Ex.D8 is the compact disc.
7. The Trial Court after recording the evidence, hearing
the learned counsel for the parties framed the
following points for consideration:
“ 1. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that on
06.02.2011 night at about 08.00 p.m.
in front of the house of CW.10-M.D.
Siddiqui situated at Aman Nagar of
Hagarga road, accused in furtherance of
their common intention of committing
the offence came on motorcycle bearing
No.KA-32-S-8023 and Car bearing
No.KA-32-M-2879, picked up quarrel
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
with CW.1 Amannulla Khan and others
in respect of demolishing the houses
and accused No. 1 abused CWs.2 to 6
in filthy language as “ a£Á®PÉà £À»Ã ºÀlvÉÆÃ
ªÀÅ£ÀPÉà ªÀÅ¥Àgï eÉù© ZÀqÁªÀ
" with and intention
to insult them and thereby gave
provocation to break the public peace
and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 504 R/W
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code?
2. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable that on the above
said date, time and place accused in
furtherance of their common intention
of committing the offence of assault,
accused No.2 drove the JCB vehicle
against CWs.2 to 6, caused scratch
injuries on their bodies and thereby
committed an offence punishable under
Section 324 R/W Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code?
3. Whether the prosecution proves that
on the above said date, time and place
accused in furtherance of their common
accused No.2 made an attempt to drove
the JCB vehicle against CWs.2 to 6,
caused scratch injuries on their bodies,
with such intention and under such
circumstances, that if by that act
accused had caused the death of CWs.2
to 6, they would have been guilty of
murder and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section 307
r/w Section 34 of Indian penal code?
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
4. What order?”
8. The Trial Court after examining the oral and
documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 to 3 in
the Negative and Point No.4, as per the final order.
Accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty of the
offences alleged against them under Sections 504,
324 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. Accordingly,
exercising the power under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
accused 1 to 3 are acquitted vide judgment dated
04.10.2016. Being aggrieved, the de-facto
complainant filed this appeal under Section 372 of the
Cr.P.C.,
9. Heard the learned counsel for the de-facto
complainant and Smt.Anita M.Reddy, Amicus Curiae
for accused Nos.1 to 3 and learned Additional State
Public Prosecutor for respondent No.4.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant-defacto complainant
submits that the prosecution has examined 11
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
witnesses to prove that accused No.1 has abused and
instigated accused No.2 to crush CWs.2 to 6 under
JCB. At the instigation of accused No.1, accused No.2
has dashed PW.2, Mohd Baba; PW.3, Imran Khan;
PW.9, Abdul Hameed; Mubeen and Abubakar and
caused injuries to them. All the accused have
threatened him and on hearing of screams of Subhan
Patel and Mohammad Ashraf Ahmed i.e., PW4 and
PW5 respectively and others, accused ran away from
the place leaving the JCB, Ambassador Car and
motorbike at the place of incident. PWs.1, 3 to 5 are
the eyewitnesses to the incident. He submits that the
Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence
on record and committed an error in acquitting the
accused for the offences punishable under the
aforesaid sections. Hence, on these grounds, he prays
to allow the appeal.
11. Per contra , learned Additional Government Advocate
submits that the Sessions Court considering the
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
material on record that there are civil cases pending
between alleged eyewitnesses, complainant, the trial
Court has rightly acquitted the accused.
12. Learned counsel Smt.Anita M.Reddy, submits that the
trial Court considering the material on record that
there are civil cases pending between the prosecution
witnesses and the accused, rightly acquitted the
accused considering Ex.D1 to D5 which show that
there are several civil litigations pending between
them. She submits that the prosecution has failed to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. She also
submits that the scope of interference in the appeal
against the order of acquittal is very less. She has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Jafarudheen and Others vs.
1
State of Kerala . She has also placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
1
2022 SCC Online SC 495
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of
Delhi and Another in Criminal Appeal Nos.410-411
of 2015 disposed of on 11.07.2022. Hence, on these
grounds, she prays to dismiss the appeal.
13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the records. The points that arise for our consideration
are:
i. Whether the de-facto complainant proved
that the impugned judgment of acquittal is
arbitrary and erroneous and without
appreciation of evidence?
ii. What order?
Reg.:Point No.1:
14. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the
complainant, Amannullah Khan S/o Jafar Khan, lodged
a complaint on 06.02.2011 alleging that accused No.1
had claimed ownership over the plots situated in
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
Sy.No.30 of Hagarga village, which had been
purchased by Imran and others, who had constructed
houses and were residing therein. On 06.02.2011 at
about 8:00 p.m., accused No.1, along with his
associates, allegedly arrived at the spot in an
Ambassador car and on a motorcycle, accompanied by
a JCB vehicle, with the intention of demolishing the
houses. When the complainant and the occupants
questioned his actions, accused No.1 allegedly abused
and threatened them and instigated accused No.2, the
JCB driver, to drive the vehicle against CWs.2 to 6,
thereby causing injuries to them. It is further alleged
that the accused threatened the complainant with dire
consequences before fleeing from the spot, leaving
the JCB, Ambassador car and motorcycle behind.
Based on the complaint, the University Police Station
registered Crime No.28/2011 for the offences
punishable under Sections 504, 324 and 307 read with
Section 34 of the IPC. Upon completion of the
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against
the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 504, 324, 307, 506 and
427 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
15. The prosecution examined the complainant as PW1
and he reiterated the complaint averments in the
examination-in-chief. During the cross-examination,
he has categorically admitted that accused No.1 filed
suits in O.S.Nos.215 of 2011 and 313 of 2011 against
the complainant and others in respect of an
immovable property. He also admitted that the
accused No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.263 of 2011 for
damages against him and the said incident has arisen
out of the same incident and accused No.1 has also
filed a criminal case against him and others which is
pending before the Court. He categorically admitted
that there are number of cases pending in respect of
land bearing Sy.No.30/4 of Hagarga village, wherein
accused No.1 had purchased various plots. The
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
prosecution also examined the PWs.2, 6, 9 and 10
namely, Mohammad Baba, Isamuddin, Abdul Hameed
and M.D.Siddiqui who turned hostile and they have
not supported the case of the prosecution.
16. PW.3, Imran Khan deposed that on 06.02.2011, when
he was standing near the Masjid, accused brought JCB
vehicle and started demolishing the house of Siddiqui.
He along with CWs.1 to 3 and 8 questioned accused
No.1 who abetted and directed the driver of JCB i.e.
accused No.2 to drive the JCB against CW1 and
attempted to murder him. From the perusal of the
complaint, it shows that the complainant has not
stated that accused No.2, driver assaulted on left eye
of PW.3 and also damaged the compound wall of his
house with the help of JCB. The complainant himself
has stated that the accused have brought a JCB and
trying to demolish the house of Siddiqui on the ground
that accused No.1 had purchased the sites in the said
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
survey number and requested Mohammad Siddiqui to
vacate and hand over the same to him.
17. PW.5, i.e., Mohammad Ashraf Ahamad deposed that
he along with CW.7 and others were sitting in a tea
hotel, at that time, accused No.1 brought the JCB and
started demolishing the house of Siddiqui.
18. PW.7 i.e., Mahmood is the panch witness for the spot
mahazar wherein the investigating officer has seized
the JCB, car and motorcycle. PW.7 has turned hostile.
19. The prosecution examined the doctor as PW.8, who
has examined the injured Imran Khan, Abubakar,
Abdul Hameed, Mohammad Baba and Mubeen, who
were brought with the history of assault.
20. The PSI was examined as PW.11. He has recorded the
statement of the complainant and registered the case
in Crime No.28 of 2011 and sent FIR to the JMFC and
he has seized the JCB vehicle, Ambassador car and
motorcycle marked as MO.1 to 3. He has also
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
recorded the statements of CW.2 to CW.10 on
09.03.2011, though incident occurred on 06.02.2011.
There is a delay of more than 1 month in recording
the statement of CW.2 to CW.10. The accused have
produced the records marked as Ex.D1 which is the
certified copy of the order sheet in S.C.No.34 of 2013
wherein accused No.1 has also lodged a complaint
against the complainant and others arising out of the
same incident. Ex.D2 is the certified copy of the plaint
in O.S.No.313 of 2011 wherein accused No.1 himself
has filed a suit against the complainant and others in
respect of the property purchased by him. Ex.D3 is
the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.215 of 2011.
Ex.D4 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.507
of 2009 and Ex.D5 is the certified copy of the plaint in
O.S.No.263 of 2011.
21. From the perusal of the records, it clearly discloses
that there is a civil dispute in between the accused
and the complainant and others. The complainant has
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
attempted to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute
with an intention of settling the civil dispute through
criminal proceedings, which is impermissible in law, in
view of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Sudha Rakesh v. The State of
2
Karnataka and Another . The accused have also
lodged a criminal case against the complainant and
others, wherein the complainant and others were
acquitted by the Court. As the parties have already
approached the Civil Court and in view of the
proposition of law, the long pending civil dispute has
been given a criminal colour by the complainant to
arrive at a settlement in civil dispute, the material on
record clearly disclose that there are no cogent,
corroborative and satisfactory material evidence to
prove the case against accused. Admittedly, the trial
Court has acquitted the accused after examining the
witnesses by the impugned judgment.
2
2026 Live Law SC 1022
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
22. The scope of interfering in the order of acquittal is
very limited, in view of the proposition laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jafarudheen
(supra) , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held at para-
25 as follows:
“25. While dealing with an appeal against the
acquittal by invoking Section 378 of Cr.P.C., the
Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial
Court's view can be termed as a possible one,
particularly when the evidence on record has been
analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal
adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of
the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be
relatively slow in reversing the order of Trial Court
rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in
favour of the accused does not get weakened but
only strengthened. Such a double presumption that
enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed
only through scrutiny on accepted legal parameters.”
23. Considering the proposition of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, the learned
Sessions Judge has rightly passed the judgment
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10976-DB
CRL.A No. 200181 of 2016
CNR: KAHC030070062016
acquitting the accused. We do not find any error in the
impugned judgment.
24. In view of the above discussion, we answer Point No.1
in the negative and accordingly, proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed .
ii. The High Court Legal Services Committee,
Kalaburagi Bench, is directed to pay a sum of
Rs.10,000/- as honorarium to the learned
Amicus Curiae, appointed to represent
respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE
VNR
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19
Ct:pk