K Hanumanthappa Vs Smt. Bhagyamma

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 05.01.2018 PASSED BY THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN SPL. C. C. NO.102/2013 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(x)(xi) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT.

¶21

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 19.06.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶23

CAV JUDGMENT

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

¶25

This appeal has been filed by the appellant / complainant against the judgment of acquittal dated 05.01.2018 in Spl.C.C.No.102/2013 on the file of the LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge, Bangalore City.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:25305 CRL.A No. 248 of 2018

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The factual matrix of the case are as under:

¶30

It is the case of the complainant that on 29.05.2012, around about 4.00 p.m., the complainant attended the Court of Asst. Commissioner in Revenue Case No.5/200910. The Advocate to the other side was submitting his argument stated that the other side people were residing in the address. By that time, the complainant and his wife Smt. Sheela interfered and informed the Asst. Commissioner that the Advocate was misleading the Court.

¶31

It is further submitted that Smt. Bhagyamma and Smt. Muniyamma who were the opposite parties have created nuisance in the court hall. After the completion of case proceedings, the complainant and his wife came out from the court hall. However, the said accused followed them and attacked them, insulted his wife by naming the caste and also assaulted them. Being insulted in the public, he lodged a complaint before the respondent police. The respondent police have registered a case in Cr. No. 163/2012 for the offences punishable under

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25305 CRL.A No. 248 of 2018

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Sections 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1) (x) (xi) of SC/ST Act, 1989. After conducting investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

¶35

To prove the case, the prosecution examined six witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked five documents as Exs.P.1 to 5. The Trial Court acquitted the accused for the aforesaid offences.

¶36

Heard Sri. A.N.Radha Kirshna, learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. B. Pushpalatha, learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.3 and Smt. Sukanya H.D., learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶37

It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of the acquittal passed by the Trial Court is opposed to the law, facts and probabilities of the case.

¶38

The evidence of P.W.6-Smt.Sheela who is the wife of P.W.5 has not been considered properly. In fact, the evidence of P.W.5 was recorded in the absence of counsel for the accused and the same was passed over to 3.00

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:25305 CRL.A No. 248 of 2018

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

p.m., for the cross-examination. However, as per the order sheet, on 23.03.2017, P.W.5 and C.W.2 were present and C.W.2 was examined as P.W. 6. Since, the counsel for the accused was absent, again the case was passed over to 3.00 p.m. When the case was called out at 3.00 p.m., P.Ws.5 and 6 were present. However, on the request made by the accused, the matter was adjourned to 04.05.2017.

¶43

It is further submitted that on 04.05.2017, even though, P.Ws.5 and 6 were present before the Court, the matter was adjourned to 15.06.2017 for cross-examination. Again on 15.06.2017, as the Presiding Officer was on leave, the matter was posted to 31.08.2017. On 31.08.2017, the evidence of P.W.5 has been expunged as P.W.5 was declined to give evidence. However, as far as P.W.6 is concerned, the case was called out at 1.25 p.m., P.W.6 was present. However, due to some unavoidable circumstances, the Trial Court did not consider the evidence of even P.W.6 also. Consequently, the impugned judgment is passed.

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25305 CRL.A No. 248 of 2018

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

It is further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 who are the eyewitnesses to the incident, their evidence is very much essential for the effective disposal of the case. As the Trial Court committed error in not considering the evidence who were material witness to the incident, it is appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and an opportunity must be given to the witnesses of the prosecution to proceed with the case. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal.

¶47

Per contra , learned Addl. SPP for the respondent – State vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and she submitted that the order sheet dated 31.08.2017 would clearly indicate that accused Nos. 1 and 2 and P.Ws.5 and 6 were present. The evidence of P.W.5 is expunged as he has declined to give evidence. P.W.6 called again at 1.25 p.m., she is the wife of P.W.5 and she is not present, therefore, her evidence has taken as nil.

¶48

It is further submitted that as the appellant and his wife were not present and co-operating with the trial and even

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25305 CRL.A No. 248 of 2018

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

also they have not made any efforts to file necessary application to give their evidence on the next date of hearing, it is not appropriate to set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

¶52

Similarly, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 adopted the arguments of learned Addl. SPP and she prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶53

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court in recording the acquittal, I have gone through the order sheet of the Trial Court. It appears from the record that the complainant is aged about 73 years, and he was working as a Director, Indian Navy (Rtd.), Government of India, Ministry of Defence. There are several dates of which, he and his wife even though visited the Court to give evidence, on one or the other pretext, the matter was being adjourned.

¶54

The order dated 31.08.2017 passed by the Trial Court appears to be unfair for the reason that the Court should be or must be friendly with the Senior Citizens.

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25305 CRL.A No. 248 of 2018

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Preference should have been given to the Senior Citizens who approach the Court for justice. In stead of giving opportunity for them to give proper evidence, the manner in which, the Court behaved, in my view, is not proper and therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

¶58

In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

¶61

(ii) The judgment of acquittal dated 05.01.2018 passed in Spl.C.C.No.102/2013 by the LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge, Bangalore City is set aside.

¶62

(iii) Registry is directed to transmit the records of the Trial Court forthwith for the purpose of considering the evidence of erstwhile P.Ws.5 and 6.

¶63

(iv) The Trial Court shall continue the evidence from the stage of examination of P.Ws.5 and 6 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:25305 CRL.A No. 248 of 2018

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

recording the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 and also other material witnesses.

¶67

(v) The Trial Court is also directed to issue notice to the witnesses and fix a date for hearing and also issue notice to the respondents/accused for their

¶68

appearance.

¶69

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶70

JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78

K Hanumanthappa v. Smt. Bhagyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Hanumanthappa v. Smt. Bhagyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B H Krishna Vs Sri Rajendra Prasad

Sri Srikanth B Vs Sri G N Manjunath

M Narayana Reddy Vs Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha

H P Prashanth Kumar Vs K N Lokesh

S. Shivakumar Vs S. Siddegowda

S D Venkatesh Vs C M Manjunatha