SULTAN vs THE STATE BY MANCHENAHALLI

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61483
CRL.A No. 1193 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010427032015





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1193 OF 2015 (C)


BETWEEN:

1. SULTAN,
S/O VAJIR ALI,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCCUPATION BUSINESS,
RESIDING AT ALIPUR VILLAGE,
TONDEBHAVI HOBLI,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561 213.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHAIKH SAOUD, ADVOCATE)








AND:

1. THE STATE BY MANCHENAHALLI POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION
DATED 11.09.2015 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA IN S.C.NO.13/2012 -
FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 326 AND SENTENCING
THE ACCUSED FOR 2 YEARS R.I. AND FINE OF RS.5,000/- AND
HE MAY BE ACQUITTED.

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



Digitally
signed by
GEETHA P G
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61483
CRL.A No. 1193 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010427032015



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT
Notice is duly served to the appellant. Appellant is
absent. Learned counsel for the appellant is present.

2. The appellant/accused no.1 has preferred this
appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on
sentence dated 11.09.2015 in S.C.No.13/2012 passed by the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura.

3. The parties are referred to by the same rank what
they had before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on
15.04.2011, CWs.1, 4 and 5 asked accused no.1 to pay the
remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- which pertain to the
monetary transaction between them. On the same day at
05.30 . p.m., when CW1-Mohammed Ibrahim was in his shop in
Alipura Village, all the accused having common object with an
intention to commit murder, accused no.1 gave blow to CW1
with chopper on his three fingers of left hand, accused no.2-
Meer Mujeeb Raza gave blow to CW1 with iron pipe on his left

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61483
CRL.A No. 1193 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010427032015



leg. Accused no.3-Rafiq assaulted him with reaper on his back.
Accused no.4-Maksud Ali assaulted him with his legs and they
attempted to commit murder and also caused grievous hurt to
CW1. Thus the accused have committed the alleged offences.

5. After filing charge sheet, the case was registered by
the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.708/2011 and the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, accused
appeared before the Sessions Court and enlarged on bail.

6. The trial Court has framed the charges against the
accused for the alleged commission of offences. Same was read
over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.

7. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has
examined five witnesses as PWs.1 to 5. Eleven documents were
marked as Exs.P1 to 11 and four material objects were marked
as M.O.No.1 to 4. On closure of prosecution side evidence,
statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused
totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However,
they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61483
CRL.A No. 1193 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010427032015



behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial
Court has acquitted accused nos.2 to 4 for the offence under
Sections 323, 324, 326, 307 read with 34 IPC. The trial Court
has also acquitted accused no.1 for the offence under Section
323, 324, 307 read with 34 IPC. However, trial Court has
convicted accused no.1 for the offence under Section 326 IPC
and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. Being
aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order on
sentence, accused no.1 has preferred this appeal.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the judgment and order of conviction under Section 326
IPC passed against the appellant is based on conjectures and
surmises and not on the legal evidence. PW1-Mohammed
Ibrahim, an injured complainant, not supported the case of the
prosecution. PW2-Famid Raza , witness for Exs.P3 and P4 also
not supported the case of prosecution. PW3-Naveed Abbas, the
star witness for the prosecution has also not supported the case
of prosecution. PW4-Dr.M.S.Balaji, who treated the injured,
issued the wound certificate-Ex.P7, has not deposed anything

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61483
CRL.A No. 1193 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010427032015



against this accused. However, the trial Court has convicted
accused no.1, which is not sustainable under law and sought
for allowing this appeal.

9. As against this, learned HCGP Sri.K.Nageshwarappa
submits that the trial Court has convicted accused no.1 in
accordance with law and facts and sought for dismissal of this
appeal.

10. Having heard the arguments on both sides and
perused the materials placed before this Court, the following
points would arise for consideration:
i. Whether the appellant/accused no.1 has made
out any ground to interfere with the impugned
judgment of conviction and order on
sentence?
ii. What order?

11. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 - Affirmative
Point No.2 - As per final order

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61483
CRL.A No. 1193 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010427032015



Regarding Point No.1:-
12. I have examined the materials placed before this
Court. The I.O. has submitted the charge sheet against the
accused for the offence under Sections 323, 324, 326, 307 r/w
34 IPC. The trial Court has acquitted accused nos.2 to 4 for the
offence under Sections 323, 324, 326, 307 r/w 34 IPC and
accused No.1 for the offence under Sections 323, 324, 307 IPC.
However, trial Court has convicted accused no.1 for the offence
under Section 326 IPC.

13. With regard to the offence under Section 326 is
concerned, PW1-Mohammed Ibrahim, the injured complainant
has deposed that at about 2 years back one day, accused no.1
assaulted him with iron rod and remaining accused have not
assaulted him. Further he has deposed that accused no.1 also
has not assaulted him. Since he was aged, he fell and sustained
injury and somebody told him to give complaint. Accordingly,
he gave complaint as per Ex.P1. He does not know the contents
of the complaint. This witness has turned hostile. The learned
Public Prosecutor has treated him as hostile witness with the
permission of the Court and cross-examined. During his cross

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61483
CRL.A No. 1193 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010427032015



examination, he has categorically denied the contents of Ex.P1.
He has also denied the further statement said to have been
recorded by the I.O. as per Ex.P2. The prosecution has not
elicited any favourable answers from this injured witness.

14. PW2-Famid has not supported the case of
prosecution. He has categorically denied the contents of Exs.P3
and 4. This witness was also treated as hostile witness with the
permission of the Court and cross-examined. During the course
of his cross examination also he has categorically denied the
statement said to have been recorded by the I.O. under Section
161 of Cr.P.C., which is marked as Ex.P5.

15. PW3-Naveed Abbas, S/o CW1 and the eyewitness
has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW4-
Dr.M.S.Balaji, the medical officer, has not deposed anything
against this accused. But he has deposed that he has examined
the injured and found the injuries mentioned in the wound
certificate, which is marked as Ex.P7. PW5-Sundar, the I.O. has
deposed as to the investigation conducted by him.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61483
CRL.A No. 1193 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010427032015



16. On careful examination of the entire evidence on
record, this Court has noticed that none of the material
witnesses including the injured has supported the case of
prosecution. The wound certificate does not reveal the name of
any accused. Even after treating PWs.1 to 4 as hostile
witnesses with the permission of the Court, prosecution has not
elicited any favourable answers from them to substantiate the
case of the prosecution. All the material witnesses have not
supported the case of prosecution. However, the trial Court has
held that the case of prosecution has proved the guilt of the
accused only on medical evidence. But the wound certificate
does not reveal the name of this accused. If really accused no.1
has assaulted PW1, he would have revealed the name of
accused no.1 before the medical officer. However, trial Court
has convicted accused no.1 without any legal evidence. Hence,
the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence
passed by the trial Court is not sustainable and accordingly, I
answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61483
CRL.A No. 1193 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010427032015



Regarding Point No.2:-
17. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
allowed
(i) The appeal is ;
(ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and
order on sentence passed by the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura
in S.C.No.13/2012 dated 11.09.2015 is hereby
set aside;
(iii) The appellant/accused no.1 is acquitted of the
offence under Section 326 of IPC;
(iv) The trial Court is directed to refund the fine
amount, if any, deposited by the appellant.

Registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment
along with TCR to the trial Court.



Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
PGG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6