SRI MOUNESH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200325 OF 2025
(372(Cr.PC)/413(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SRI MOUNESH S/O MALLAPPA PUJARI (HOSAMANI),
AGED ABOUT YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RAJAPUR (B) VILLAGE,
TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIR - 585223
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
GOGI POLICE STATION,
TQ. SHAHAPURA, DIST. YADGIR,
REPRESENTED BY ASPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
2. SRI HONNAPPA S/O PEERAPPA PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
3. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA @ SUSHEELABAI
W/O HONNAPPA PUJARI (HOSAMANI),
R/O. RAJAPUR (B) VILLAGE,
Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
TQ. SHAHAPUR,
DIST. YADGIR – 585223.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANILKUMAR NAVADAGI, ADDL.SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF CR.P.C
(OLD), UNDER SECTION 413 OF BNSS,2023 (NEW) PRAYING
TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 08.09.2023 PASSED IN S.C.NO.63/2015 BY THE
COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIRI,
FURTHER TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED. AND TO GRANT ANY
OTHER REMEDY TO WHICH THIS APPELLANT IS FOUND
ENTITLED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. This appeal is filed by the complainant under Section
413 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for
short, ‘BNSS’) challenging the judgment of acquittal
dated 08.09.2023 passed in S.C.No.63 of 2015 by the
learned District and Sessions Judge, Yadagiri (for
short, ‘the Trial Court’) for the offences punishable
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
under Section 323, 307, 504, 506 read with Section
34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are as
follows:
The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 is the
younger brother of CW.7. There is a dispute between
them in respect of front yard of the house of accused
No.1 situated at Rajapur Village within the jurisdiction
of Gogi Police Station. On 01.12.2014 at about 05:00
p.m., CW.8 and his son CW.1 Mounesh S/o Mallappa
Pujari have cut the branches of a Neem tree which
was lying in front of their house and while cutting,
some of the branches of the Neem tree, fell on the
Curry leave tree which was lying in front of the house
of the accused persons and in respect of the same,
there was some verbal altercation between them. On
02.12.2014 at about 06:30 a.m. CW.1, CW.7 and the
wife of CW.7 i.e. CW.6 Ningamma were sweeping the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
front yard of their house, at that time, accused Nos.1
and 2 in furtherance of their common intention came
over there and abused them in a filthy language by
saying as “
¯Éà ¨ÉÆøÀr ªÀÄPÀ̼Éà ¤ªÀÄäUÉ JµÀÄÖ ¸À® ºÉüÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÉÆPÀÄÌ
§A¢zÉ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è MAzÀÄ ºÉt ºÉÆzÀgÉà £ÀªÀÄä vÀAmÉUÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ
and with an intention to commit the murder
§gÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè.”
of them. Accused No.2 caught hold of CW.7 and
accused No.1 stabbed on the abdomen of CW.7 with
the dagger and attempted to commit the murder.
CW.1, CW.6 and CW.8 Mallappa S/o Mareppa and
CW.9 pacified the quarrel and accused persons caused
a threat to the lives of the victim and left the place.
CW.7 was admitted to the Government Hospital,
Shahapur. On receipt of MLC Gogi Police rushed to the
said hospital at 07:45 a.m. and received the
computerized First Information Statement given by
the informant / Mounesh. The Gogi Police registered a
case in Crime No.126 of 2014 and took up the
investigation and went to the place of incident, drew
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
up mahazar and seized dagger and recorded the
statement of witnesses and after completion of
investigation, filed the charge sheet against accused
Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of
IPC.
3. The learned Magistrate based on the charge sheet
took cognizance of the offence and after complying
the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed
the case to the Sessions Court. On the receipt of the
entire committal record, the trial Court numbered the
case as S.C.No.63 of 2015. The trial Court, after
hearing the learned counsel for the
accused/respondent before charge, framed the
charge, read over the same and explained to the
accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
4. The prosecution in all examined 11 witnesses as
PWs.1 to 11 and marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
P12 and MOs.1 to 4 and closed its side. The
statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 were recorded
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and they have denied all
the incriminating circumstances appeared in the
evidence and they have not adduced any oral or
documentary evidence.
5. The Trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for
the parties framed the following points for
consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all
reasonable doubt that on 02.12.2014 at
6:30 a.m., in-front of the house of CW.1
situated at Rajapur village within the
jurisdiction of Shahapur police station,
accused Nos. 1 and 2 who nursed grudge
against CW.7 and his family members
picked up quarrel with CW.7 with regard to
the manner he and his son cut the branches
of their Neem tree on 1-12-2014 at 5-00
p.m., which fallen on the curry leaves tree
belongs to the accused and with regard to
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
the same, he abused CW.7 and his family
members in filthy language and intentionally
insulted and thereby gave provocation to
CW.7 intending that such provocation would
cause him to break public peace and thereby
committed an offence punishable under
Section 504 R/w Section 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proved
beyond all reasonable doubt that on the
above said date, time and place, accused
Nos.1 and 2 in-furtherance of their common
intention, accused No.2 caught hold of CW.7
by using criminal force and voluntarily
caused hurt to him and thereby committed
an offence punishable u/S.323 R/w Section
34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proved
beyond all reasonable doubt that on the
above said date, time and place, accused
Nos.1 and 2 in-furtherance of their common
intention, when accused No.2 caught hold of
CW.7, accused No.1 stabbed on the
abdomen of CW.7 with dagger and made an
attempt to commit murder of CW.7 with
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
such intention and under such
circumstances, that if by that act he had
caused the death of CW.7-Mallappa S/o
Peerappa Pujari, he would have been guilty
of murder u/s.302 of IPC and thereby
committed an offence punishable u/s.307
R/w Section 34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution further proved
beyond all reasonable doubt that on the
above said date, time and place, accused
Nos.1 and 2 in-furtherance of their common
intention, committed criminal intimidation
by giving threat to CW.1. 6 and 7 and
thereby committed an offence punishable
U/Sec.506 R/w Section 34 of IPC?
5. What order?
6. The Trial Court, after appreciating the entire evidence
on record answered point Nos.1 to 4 in the Negative
and point No.5 as per the final order and the accused
persons were acquitted for the offences punishable
under Sections 323, 307, 504, 506 read with Section
34 of IPC vide judgment dated 08.09.2023.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
7. Aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal dated
08.09.2023, the complainant has filed this appeal
under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., read with Section 413 of
BNSS 2023.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that
accused No.1 is his father's younger brother and there
was a feud with regard to the front yard of a house of
accused No.1 situated at Rajapur village. He had
submitted that on 01.12.2014 at 05:00 p.m., the
complainant and his father have cut the branches of
Neem tree which is in front of his house, some of the
branches as well as leaves have fallen on the Curry
leave tree planted at the house of accused No.1. On
02.12.2014 at 06:30 a.m., accused persons came and
abused them in a filthy language and threatened with
dire consequences and accused No.1 stabbed on the
abdomen of complainant with a dagger and attempted
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
to commit a murder. Thereafter, the complainant, his
mother and one Sharanabasava and one Mallappa
Badiger tried to pacify the incident. Immediately, the
father of the complainant was shifted to the
Government Hospital, Shahapur. The complainant
lodged a complaint against the accused persons. He
submits that the prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt by examining 11 witnesses
and produced and marked 12 documents and 4
material objects.
10. Learned counsel submits that the trial Court has not
properly appreciated the entire evidence adduced by
the prosecution and erred in holding that the
testimonies of all the witnesses lack credence and do
not inspire the confidence of the Court and he also
submitted that the trial Court has not considered the
wound certificate marked as Ex.P8. hence, he submits
that the judgment passed by the Trial Court is
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he
prays to allow the appeal.
11. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the complainant.
12. The point that would arise for our consideration are:
i. Whether the complainant/appellant proves
that the judgment of acquittal passed by
the Trial Court is arbitrary and erroneous
and without application of mind?
13. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined
the complainant as PW.1. He has deposed that on
01.12.2014 at 6:30 a.m., his father has cut the Neem
tree branches and some of the branches and leaves of
Neem tree fell on the Curry leave tree which was in
front of the house of the accused persons. The
accused persons quarreled with them and gave threat
to their lives and accused No.1 stabbed on the
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
abdomen of father of the complainant i.e., CW.7 with
the dagger and attempted to commit his murder. He
has lodged the complaint and the FIR is marked as
Ex.P1. On the basis of the information, the police have
registered a criminal case against the accused and his
signatures are marked as Ex.P1(a) & (b).
14. During the course of cross-examination, it is elicited
that alleged incident took place in the front yard and
he was drinking tea in the house and his father was
sweeping in front yard. Further, it is elicited that at
the time of alleged incident, his family members were
present, and after the alleged incident, others came to
the spot, and it is elicited that he took his father to
the hospital, and he was not in a position to talk. It is
also elicited that while going towards the Shahpur
they have to pass through the Gogi Police Station. He
further deposed that police have recorded his
statement as per his instruction/dictation and he has
further deposed that Bhimrayanagudi Police have
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
recorded his statement in typing with the help of the
computer at 12:00 noon and he admits that he has
not visited the Gogi Police Station. The place of
incident was very near to the Bhimarayangudi Police
Station, but the complainant did not approach the
Bhimarayanagudi Police Station but they approached
the Gogi Police Station. The prosecution has not
explained why the complainant did not approach the
Bhimarayanagudi Police Station as the place of
incident comes within the jurisdiction of
Bhimarayanagudi Police Station.
15. The prosecution examined one Ramesh as PW.2
(CW.4) who is a Mahazar witness. He deposed that
about four years back, the police called him near canal
at Rajapur village and one Peerappa was there and
accused No.1 has produced one dagger and the police
seized the dagger which is marked as MO.1 and drawn
a panchanama. During the course of cross-
examination, he deposed that Yamanappa produced
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
the dagger and he was not an accused in this case.
Though in the examination-in-chief, he has deposed
that accused No.1 has produced one dagger, but
during the course of cross-examination, it is elicited
that Yamanappa has produced the dagger and the
police has not recorded the statement of Yamanappa
and they have not arrayed him as an accused. As
could be seen from the records, it appears that PW.2
is the habitual pancha. He has clearly admitted that
the police used to call him for any mahazar. The
evidence of PW.2 cannot be believed as he is a
habitual pancha.
16. The prosecution examined one Maralingappa as PW.3
i.e., CW.2. He deposed that about 2-3 years back,
police came and asked him to show the house of
Manappa and CW.7 and he has shown their houses.
He has deposed that the police did not seized MOs.2
to 4 in his presence. During the cross-examination, he
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
denied that police seized Ex.P2 and P4 in his
presence.
17. The prosecution examined one Ningappa as PW.4. He
has deposed that police took his signature on Ex.P2
and 4, but he deposed that the police did not seize
anything in his presence. He turned hostile. During
the cross-examination, he deposed that police did not
seize anything in his presence.
18. The prosecution examined one Ningamma as P.W.5,
who is the mother of CW.1. In her examination chief,
she has deposed that about six years ago, accused
No.1 quarreled about cutting of tree and abused her
husband and accused No.2 held her husband and
accused No.1 stabbed on the stomach of her husband
with a dagger and gave threat to his life. During the
cross-examination it is elicited that her husband had
two brothers and there was a partition dispute and
she deposed about filing of case before Shahapur
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
Court. She deposed that decree was passed in favour
of accused No.1 and she was not present on the spot
and she was preparing roti in the house. She heard
the hue and cry and saw public gathered on the spot.
19. The prosecution examined one Sharanabasappa as
P.W.6. He has not supported the case of the
prosecution and turned hostile.
20. One Mallappa was examined as P.W.7. He has
deposed about the quarrel and stabbing by accused.
He further deposed that he and Sharanabasava
pacified the incident and took the victim to
Government Hospital. He has deposed that accused
No.2 provoked accused No.1 by handing over dagger
to him. During the course of cross-examination, it is
elicited that when he came to the spot, informant and
accused were not there and they went to Government
Hospital. From the perusal of evidence of P.W.7, it is
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
clear that the alleged incident has no occurred in his
presence and he is not an eyewitness to the incident.
21. One Umesh was examined as PW8 (CW.11), who was
the then Assistant Engineer of PWD office, Shahapur.
He has deposed that he has prepared the sketch and
the sketch is marked as Ex.P6.
22. The prosecution examined the Police Constable of
Gogi Police Station as PW.9. He was examined only to
prove the transmission of FIR to the Court.
23. Dr. Ravindra Patil is examined as PW.10. He has
deposed that he was working as a Medical Officer at
Basaveshwara Hospital, Kalaburagi and he has
examined the Mallappa on 02.12.2014. During cross-
examination he has deposed that the victim was
brought by one Ramesh i.e. PW.2. But it was not the
case of prosecution that Ramesh brought the victim to
the hospital. He has deposed that he has informed the
concerned Police about the MLC and they have
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
secured M.B.Nagar Police Station, Kalaburagi and the
police, M.B.Nagar Police has got the police outpost in
their hospital and he has issued wound certificate
marked as Ex.P8. From the perusal of the evidence of
PW.10, he has not stated the age of the injured in the
wound certificate and further Ramesh was examined
as PW.2. He has never stated that he had shifted the
victim to the hospital.
24. The Investigating Officer was examined as PW.11. He
has deposed that he has recorded the voluntary
statement of accused No.1 and he has seized the
dagger at the instance of accused No.1 on the basis of
his voluntary statement. During cross-examination, it
is elicited that he went to the hospital and after one
hour, CW.1 came and produced the typed copy of the
first information statement. He has also deposed that
hospital authorities directly sent the wound certificate
to him. He admitted that there is an endorsement in
the wound certificate as if it was sent to the Shahapur
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
Police Station and he has also admitted that he has
not mentioned the blood stains to the dagger in the
seizure mahazar.
25. From the perusal of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, it is clear that P.W.1 admitted that he
took his father to the hospital on his bike while
passing from the place of alleged incident, they have
to pass through the Gogi Police Station but the
complainant has not made any attempt to lodge a
complaint before the Gogi Police Station and they
have lodged the complaint before the
Bhimarayanagudi Police Station and
Bhimarayanagudi Police have recorded statement in
typing with the help of the computer and he came to
the said Bhimarayanagudi Police Station at 12:00
noon. Though the alleged incident took place at
06:30 a.m. in the morning on 02.12.2014 and the
prosecution has not explained the distance between
the place of incident and Bhimarayanagudi Police
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
Station and further the complainant has not made
any attempt to lodge a complaint in the Gogi Police
Station as the place of incident falls within the
jurisdiction of the Gogi Police Station. Further,
Ramesh was examined as PW.2 who is a mahazar
witness. Although he has stated in the examination-
in-chief that accused No.1 has produced the dagger
which is marked as MO.1, during the cross-
examination it is elicited that Yamunappa has
produced the dagger. There is an inconsistency in the
examination-in-chief and cross-examination of PW.2
and further it is elicited that PW.2 is the habitual
pancha. The said witness acted as a pancha in a
number of criminal cases for drawing a mahazar.
26. It is elicited from the records that PW.3 has only
shown the house of Manappa and CW.7, but he has
not stated which house and who is the owner of the
said house and he has also deposed that the police
have not seized MONo.2 to 4 in his presence and he
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
has also denied drawing of spot mahazar as per
Ex.P2 in his presence and seizing of clothes under
the seizure mahazer as per Ex.P4. The evidence of
PW.3 doesn't support the case of the prosecution.
27. PW.4 Ningappa has turned hostile though he is a
witness to Ex.P2 and P4 i.e. spot mahazar and
seizure mahazar and he has deposed that the police
did not seize anything in his presence. PW.5, the wife
of victim, at the time of alleged incident, she was
inside the house preparing rotis and the alleged
incident has taken place in front yard. The evidence
of PW.5 doesn't come to the aid of prosecution to
prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
28. Sharanabasappa who is said to be Mediator between
the victim and accused persons. But the said witness
turned hostile. One Mallappa was examined as PW.7.
He has acted as a mediator in between the victim
and the accused persons. Though he has stated that
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
he himself and Sharanbasappa i.e., PW.6 pacified the
quarrel between the victim’s family and the accused
persons, Sharanabasappa i.e. PW.6 has turned
hostile. He has deposed that he has totally denied
the case of the prosecution. Further during the
course of cross-examination of PW.6, it is elicited
that by the time he reached the spot, the victim and
accused were not present at the spot. The evidence
of PW.7 will not support the case of the prosecution
to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The
prosecution examined the Doctor as PW.10. He has
deposed that he has examined the Mallappa on
02.12.2014 and issued the wound certificate marked
as Ex.P8. During the cross-examination, he has
admitted that he has not mentioned the age of the
injured in the wound certificate. He has deposed that
he has examined the injured-Mallappa on 02.12.2014
at 10:00 a.m. Neither PW.1 nor PW.5 has stated that
Mallappa was taken to Basaveshwara Hospital,
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
Kalaburagi. It is the case of the prosecution that
PW.1 has taken Mallappa to the Government
Hospital, Shahapur. But the evidence of P.W.10 says
that Mallappa was brought by one Ramesh i.e.,
P.W.2 to BAsaveshwar Hospital Kalaburagi. Further
PW.1 has stated that he came to Bhimarayanagudi
Police Station at 12:00 noon. If the complaint was
lodged before the Bhimarayanagudi Police Station at
12:00 noon, then how could P.W.10 gave evidence
that he has informed the concerned police about the
MLC and they have secured MB Nagar Police,
Kalaburagi. From the perusal of the records, it clearly
discloses inconsistency in the evidence of witnesses
and there is a dispute between Mallappa and the
accused in regard to the property and the accused
approached the Civil Court and obtained a decree.
The prosecution examined the mahazar witness as
PWs.3 and 4 who were witnesses to Ex.P2 and P4.
Neither PW.3 nor PW.4 has stated that the police
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
have recorded the voluntary statement of accused
No.1. Further the investigation officer deposed that
he seized dagger at the instance of accused No.1 on
the basis of his voluntary statement. but in the
cross-examination, he has not mentioned blood
stains to dagger in the seizure mahazar. Except PW.1
none of the prosecution / charge sheet witnesses
have supported the case of the prosecution to prove
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
29. The Trial Court considering the entire evidence on
record has rightly held that the prosecution has failed
to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt that on 02.12.2014 at 06:30 a.m.,
in front of the house of CW.1 situated at Rajapur
village within the jurisdiction of Shahapur Police
Station, accused No.1 and 2, who nursed grudge
against CW.7 and his family members, picked up a
quarrel with CW.7 with regard to the manner he and
his son cut branches of Neem tree on 01.12.2014 at
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
05:00 p.m., which fell on the Curry tree belonging to
accused and with regard to the same, they abused
CW.7 and his family members in filthy language and
intentionally insulted and thereby gave provocation
to CW.7 intending that such provocation would cause
him to break public peace and thereby committed an
offence under Section 504 read with Section 34 of
IPC and also failed to prove that in furtherance of a
common intention, accused No.2 caught hold of
CW.7 by using criminal force and voluntarily caused
hurt to him and committed an offence under Section
323 read with Section 34 of IPC and failed to prove
that accused No.1 stabbed on the abdomen of CW.7
with a dagger and made an attempt to commit
murder of CW.7 and committed an offence
punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
30. The Trial Court considering the entire material on
record has rightly passed the judgment of acquittal.
In view of the above discussion, we are not inclined
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal.
Accordingly, we answer point for consideration in the
Negative .
31. The scope of judicial interference in the case of
acquittal is very limited as held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Jafarudheen and others vs.
1
State of Kerala , 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.”
1
2022 SCC Online SC 495
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10368-DB
CRL.A No.200325 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030132462025
32. In regard to the proposition of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case referred to supra, we
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed .
ii. The judgment of acquittal dated 08.09.2023
passed in S.C.No.63 of 2015 by the learned
District and Sessions Judge, Yadagir is hereby
confirmed.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE
VNR
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22
Ct:pk