R Shankar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2026CRL.A/291/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, G Basavaraja J, 05.02.2026 — CRL.A No. 291 of 2013 — acquittal on appeal; S.326 IPC conviction quashed for want of evidence identifying accused No.4 R. Shankar; non-disclosure of assailant's name in complaint/FIR, Ex.D2 statement of victim PW.4 Vedashree, and wound certificate Ex.P.13; eyewitness PW.5 Adarsha did not name accused; hearsay witnesses PW.1 Shivaji Rao, PW.6, PW.7; FTC-10 Bengaluru SC.No.9/2007; offence of 07.05.2006 Malleshwaram; Govind Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh cited by appellant's counsel.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 31.01.2013 in S.C.No.9/2007 set aside; appellant-accused No.4 acquitted of the offence under Section 326 IPC; bail bond cancelled; fine amount, if deposited, to be returned to him in accordance with law. ¶132

R Shankar Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶132

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 326 IPC? +1 more

¶53

Court's answer

PW.1-Shivaji Rao is not the eyewitness; he did not disclose the name of the accused in his complaint, and the eyewitness PW.5 (his son) did not disclose the name of accused No.4 in his evidence.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

PW.5-Adarsha, said to be the eyewitness, deposed that one accused held a knife and another accused assaulted his elder sister with long on her head, but he did not disclose the name of accused No.4.

¶17

Key takeaways

Victim PW.4-Vedashree, though acquainted with the name of accused No.4, deposed only that somebody assaulted her towards the back side with long and did not specifically state that accused No.4 assaulted her.ratio¶16
The statement of PW.4-Vedashree recorded by the Investigating Officer on 10.05.2006 (Ex.D2) does not reveal the name of accused No.4.ratio¶28
Ex.P.13-wound certificate records admission of the injured with a history of assault by somebody with a chopper; the name of accused No.4 was not disclosed in the wound certificate.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (S.374(2) Cr.P.C.) — Conviction under S.326 IPC by FTC-10, Bengaluru in S.C.No.9/2007 set aside — Complainant PW.1 not an eyewitness and did not disclose the name of accused No.4 in the complaint; eyewitness PW.5 and victim PW.4 did not disclose the name of accused No.4; statement of PW.4 recorded by the IO (Ex.D2) and wound certificate Ex.P.13 silent as to accused No.4 — no cogent, convincing, clinching, corroborative evidence to convict accused No.4 — conviction under S.326 IPC not sustainable in law — appeal allowed, accused acquitted, bail bond cancelled, fine if deposited to be refunded.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6827 CRL.A No. 291 of 2013

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 291 OF 2013 (C)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

R. SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O. RAJANNA, R/A. NO.746, 11^TH MAIN 5^TH CROSS, M.L.PURAM BANGALORE- 560 086.

¶9

AT PRESENT R/A. NO.2591, NEW NO.423 7^TH MAIN ROAD, SWATHANTRA YODHARA NAGARA, LAGGERE BANGALORE- 560 058.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI VISHNU MURTHY., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALLESHWARAM P.S. - 560 003.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE LEARNED FTC-10, BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.09/2007 VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2013 AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED FTC-10, BENGALURU IN THE ABOVE CASE VIDE ORDER DATED 13.02.2013 AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:6827 CRL.A No. 291 of 2013

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

The appellant, who is accused No.4 before the trial Court has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Presiding Officer, FTC-10, Bengaluru in SC.No.9/2007 dated 31.01.2013 (for short, "the trial Court")

¶25

The parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶26

The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Police Inspector, Malleshwaram Police Station submitted the charge sheet against the appellant/accused No.4 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 324, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution is that the daughter of the complainant is studying final year B.Com at Vivekananda College and the complainant is having a neighbor namely Manjunath - accused No.1 and his wife namely Savithri is accused

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6827 CRL.A No. 291 of 2013

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

No.2. The said Manjunath used to tease the daughter of complainant often by saying that he will marry her. Upon coming to know the same, the complaint and his wife had advised the said Manjunath and also their daughter. It is further alleged that the daughter of the complainant also informed that when the said Manjunath was teasing her near her college she had telephoned to the Hoysala Police by seeing them, he ran away from the spot. Since there was quarrel between the complainant and the Manjunath often, the Manjunath had vacated the house and shifted to a house at pipeline. Since then, Manjunath and his wife were having enmity with the complainant. It is further alleged that on 07.05.2006 at about 05.00p.m., when the daughter of the complainant and his son were standing in front of their house, who were checking their Kinetic Honda bearing registration No.KA-05-E-5539, all of a sudden the son of the complainant started screaming. When the complainant's brother namely Jagannath and others came outside they saw bleeding injuries on her

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6827 CRL.A No. 291 of 2013

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

daughter's head. When the complainant enquired his son, he informed that from 03.00p.m., Manjunath and his wife (accused Nos.1 and 2) were seeing towards them and after sometime Savithramma had called to some person and that person came and assaulted his sister on her head by long and Savithramma was giving signal to that person. Further, it is alleged that younger brother of the complainant had shifted the injured to KC General Hospital and thereafter to NIMHANS for treatment. The complainant's son had seen the incident and lodged a complaint.

¶33

After investigation, the Investigating Officer (for

¶34

short 'the IO') has submitted the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 324, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. After filing the charge sheet, the case was registered in CC.No.34181/2006. The trial Court has separated the case against accused No.5 as per the order dated 11.10.2007. Thereafter, case was committed to the

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6827 CRL.A No. 291 of 2013

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Court of Sessions and was registered in SC.No.9/2007. By order dated 23.10.2009, the case against accused No.3 is abated. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court has framed the charges against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 for the offences under Sections 324, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. The same was explained to the accused and having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶38

To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined eighteen witnesses as PW.1 to PW.18 and 25 documents were marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P25 and 7 material objects were marked as MO.1 to MO.7. On closure of the prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. But during the course of crossexamination of the persecution witnesses, Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 was marked. Having heard the arguments on both sides,

¶39

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6827 CRL.A No. 291 of 2013

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

the Trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 for the offences punishable under Section 324, 307 read with 34 of IPC and accused No.4 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and trial Court has passed a sentence for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Being aggrieved by same, accused No.4 has preferred this appeal.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the trial Court has failed to see that the case was registered only against accused Nos.1 and 2. The name of the appellant was not found in the FIR or in the complaint. Later on, the appellant was falsely implicated in this case. Without looking into the same, the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the learned Sessions Judge is totally perverse and liable to be interfered by this Court. The IO has not conducted the test identification parade before the Tahsildar, but the only identification before the police and not before the Court is valueless and hit by Section 161 of

¶43

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:6827 CRL.A No. 291 of 2013

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Cr.PC. Without appreciating the same, the trial Court has committed an error in convicting accused No.4. Further, he would submit that in the evidence of PW.4 - Vedashree, she has stated that she is acquainted with accused No.4 - R Shankar. However, she has not disclosed his name before the doctor nor before the police. The police have recorded the statement as per Ex.D2 that somebody assaulted to her on head and she has not disclosed the name of accused No.4. However, in the examination inchief of PW.4, she has deposed that she acquainted with accused No.4 but not disclosed the name of accused No.4 before the police as well as to the doctor. PW.5 - brother of the victim has not disclosed the name of accused No.4 before the police. Ex.P13 - Wound certificate does not reveal as to the names of accused No.4 or other accused. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with the law and facts. There is no cogent, convincing and clinching evidence to convict accused No.4. On all these grounds, he sought for allowing

¶46

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:6827 CRL.A No. 291 of 2013

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

this appeal. To substantiate his argument, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GOVIND MANDAVI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH arising out of

¶49

SLP (Crl) No.13533/2025, decided on 08.12.2025.

¶50

On the other hand, Smt. N.Anitha Girish, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and sought for dismissal of this appeal.

¶51

Having heard the arguments on both sides, the

¶52

following points would arise for consideration:

¶53

i. Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 326 IPC?

¶54

ii. What order?

¶55

My answer to the above points are as under:

¶56

Point No. i: In the negative,

¶57

Point No. ii: As per the final order.

¶58

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:6827 CRL.A No. 291 of 2013

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Regarding Point No.1:

¶61

I have examined the materials placed before this Court. It is alleged by the prosecution that the daughter of the complainant is studying final year B.Com at Vivekananda College and the complainantManjunath/accused No.1 is a neighbour. The said Manjunath used to tease the daughter of complainant often by saying that he will marry her. By coming to know the same, the complainant and his wife had advised the said Manjunath and also their daughter. It is further alleged that the daughter of the complainant also informed that when the said Manjunath was teasing her near her college she had telephoned to the Hoysala Police. By seeing them, he ran away from the spot. Since there was quarrel between the complainant and the Manjunath very often, the Manjunath vacated the house. Since then the Manjunath and his wife were having enmity with the complainant. It is further alleged that on 07.05.2006 at about 05.00p.m., when the daughter of the complainant

¶62

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:6827 CRL.A No. 291 of 2013

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

and his son were standing in front of their house, who were checking their Kinetic Honda bearing registration No.KA-05-E-5539, all of a sudden the son of the complainant started screaming. When the complainant's brother namely Jagannath and others came outside and they saw bleeding injuries on her daughter's head. When the complainant enquired his son, he informed that from 03.00p.m., Manjunath and his wife (accused Nos.1 and 2) were staring at them and after sometime Savithramma had called to some person and that person came and assaulted his sister on her head by long and Savithramma was giving signal to that person. Further, it is alleged that younger brother of the complainant had shifted the injured to KC General Hospital and thereafter to NIMHANS for further treatment. The complainant's son had seen the incident and lodged a complaint.

¶65

To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.18

¶66

and 25 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.25.

¶67

11 -

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:6827 CRL.A No. 291 of 2013

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

The genesis of the case arise out of the complaint filed by PW.1-Shivaji Rao as per Ex.P.1, in which it is stated as under:

¶71

"��ೕ ��ಾ��ಾ� �� ೇ� ದಶರಥ�ಾ�, ವಯಸು� 48 ವಷ�, �ಾಸ ನಂ.79 (ನೂ� ನಂ.16) 6�ೇ �ಾ� , ಮ�ೆ"ೕಶ#ರಂ, $ೆಂ. ನಗರ ರವರ &ೇ'�ೆ .

¶72

¥sÉÆ.£ÀA: 980607612

¶73

�ಾನು ಈ )ೕಲ+ಂಡ -.ಾಸದ/"ರುವ ಸ#ಂತ ಮ�ೆಯ/" ನನ1 ಸಂ2ಾರ3ೊಂ45ೆ �ಾಸ-ದು6 5ಾಂ7ನಗರ 8ಂ9�ೇ� $ಾ�ಂ:ನ/" ಆ<ೆಂಡ= �ೆಲಸ >ಾ9�ೊಂ9ರು?ೆ@ೕ�ೆ .

¶74

ಮ�ೆಯ/" ನನ1 &ೆಂಡA ��ೕಮA ಲBCೕ, ಮಕ+.ಾದ ಕು॥ �ೇದ��ೕ, ವಯಸು� 20 ವಷ�, ಮಗ ಆದಶ� 14 ವಷ� ಇರು?ಾ@�ೆ .

¶75

ನನ1 ಮಗಳG �ೇದ��ೕ ಈ�ೆಯು -�ೇ�ಾನಂದ �ಾ�ೇHನ/" IೈನK ��ಾಂನ/" �ಾ�ಸಂಗ >ಾ9�ೊಂ9ರು?ಾ@.ೆ .

¶76

ನಮL ಮ�ೆಯ ಪಕ+ದ/" ಮಂಜು�ಾಥನು ಆತನ &ೆಂಡA ��ೕಮA 2ಾ-A� ಎಂಬುವ�ೊಂ45ೆ $ಾ95ೆ ಮ�ೆಯ/" �ಾಸ ಇದ6ರು.

¶77

ಈ ಮಂಜು�ಾಥನು ನನ1 ಮಗಳನು1 ಆ5ಾ5ೆQ ಚೂSಾTಸುA@ದು6, ನಂತರ ಮದು�ೆ >ಾ9�ೊಳGU?ೆ@ೕ�ೆಂದು &ೇಳGA@ದು6, ಈ -ಷಯ A'ದ �ಾನು ಮತು@ ನನ1 &ೆಂಡA ನನ1 ಮಗ'5ೆ ಬು46 &ೇ' ಮತು@ ಆತVಗೂ AಳGವ'�ೆ Vೕ93ೆ6ವW. ಅಲ"3ೆ ಮಂಜು�ಾಥನು ನನ1 ಮಗಳ �ಾ�ೇH ಹA@ರ &ೋZ ಚುSಾTಸುA@3ಾ6ಗ &ೊಯ�ಳ [/ೕ 5ೆ \ೕ� >ಾ9ದ6.ೆಂದು ಅವರು ಬರುವWದನು1 ಕಂಡು ಪ�ಾ]^ಾದ�ೆಂದು ಇA@ೕ_ೆ5ೆ ನನ1 ಮಗಳG A'8ದ6ಳG. ಈ ]ೕA ಆ5ಾ5ೆQ ನಮಗೂ ಅವ]ಗೂ ಗ�ಾ<ೆ^ಾಗುA@ದ6]ಂದ 2006�ೇ

¶78

12 -

¶79

NC: 2026:KHC:6827 CRL.A No. 291 of 2013

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

Iೆಬ�ವ] Aಂಗ'ನ/" ಮಂಜು�ಾಥನು ಮ�ೆ `ಾ/ >ಾ9�ೊಂಡು aೈb�ೇ� 4�ೇ �ಾ� ನ/" �ಾಸ ಇದ6ನು.

¶82

ಈ ಮಂಜು�ಾಥನು ಮತು@ ಆತನ &ೆಂಡA ಅಂ4Vಂದ ನಮLನು1 3ೆ#ೕcಸುA@ದ6ರು.

¶83

ಈ 4ನ 4�ಾಂಕ 07.05.06 ರಂದು ಸಂdೆ ಸು>ಾರು 05.00 ಗಂ<ೆಯ/" ನಮL ಮ�ೆಯ ಮುಂ4ನ ರ2ೆ@ ಬ4ಯ/" ]aೇ] >ಾ98�ೊಂಡು ಬಂ4ದ6 ನಮL �ೈನe: &ೊಂSಾ ನಂ.�ೆ .ಎ.02-ಇ-5539ನು1 ನನ1 ಮಗಳG ಮತು@ ಮಗ ಇಬfರೂ _ೆ: >ಾಡುA@ದ6ರು. ಆಗ ಇದ6g+ದಂ?ೆ ನಮL ಮಗ gರುh�ೊಂಡನು. ತiಣ �ಾನು, ನನ1 ತಮL ಜಗ�ಾ1ಥ ಇತರರು ಬಂದು �ೋ93ಾಗ ನನ1 ಮಗ'5ೆ ತ�ೆಯ/" Aೕವ��ಾದ ರಕ@5ಾಯ ಉಂ<ಾZತು@. ನನ1 ಮಗನನು1 -_ಾ]83ಾಗ ಸಂdೆ 3.00 ಗಂ<ೆTಂದ ಮಂಜು�ಾಥ ಮತು@ ಆತನ &ೆಂಡA ಆ5ಾ5ೆQ �ೋ9�ೊಂಡು ಅವರ �ೈನe: &ೊಂSಾದ/" &ೋಗುA@ದ6�ೆಂದು ಸ#ಲl ಸಮಯದ ಮುಂ_ೆ 2ಾ-ತ�ಮL ^ಾ]5ೊ \ೕ� >ಾಡುA@ದು6 ಆತನು ಬಂದು �ಾಂmVಂದ ಅಕ+ನ ತ�ೆ5ೆ &ೊSೆದ�ೆಂದು 2ಾ-ತ�ಮL ಆತV5ೆ 8ಗ1K Vೕ9ದ.ೆಂದು A'8ದ.

¶84

ರಕ@5ಾಯ5ೊಂ9ದ6 ನನ1 ಮಗಳನು1 ನನ1 ತªÀÄä ಜಗ�ಾ1ಥನು �ೆ .8.�. ಆಸl?ೆ�5ೆ ಕ�ೆದು�ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು &ೆhnನ hg?ೆ�5ಾZ V>ಾo�� ಆಸl?ೆ�5ೆ ಕ�ೆದು�ೊಂಡು &ೋದ�ೆಂದು A'8ದರು. ಈ ಘಟ�ೆಯನು1 ನನ1 ಮಗ ಪ�ತ�i�ಾZ �ೋ9ರು?ಾ@�ೆ . &ೊSೆದ ಅ2ಾrಯನು1 ನನ1 ಮಗ �ೋ9ದ�ೆ ಗುA�ಸು?ಾ@�ೆ .

¶85

ಆದ6]ಂದ ಈ ]ೕA ಹ.ೆಯ 3ೆ#ೕಷ4ಂದ ಮಂಜು�ಾಥ ಮತು@ 2ಾ-ತ�ಮL ರವರು ನನ1 ಮಗಳನು1 �ೊ�ೆ >ಾ9ಸುವ ಉ3ೆ6ೕಶ4ಂದ $ೇ�ೆ ಅ2ಾr5ೆ &ೇ' �ಾಂmVಂದ &ೊSೆದು �ೊ�ೆ >ಾಡಲು ಪ�ಯA18ರು?ಾ@�ೆ . ಈ ಬ5ೆQ ಅವರ -ರುದs �ಾನೂನು ]ೕ?ಾ� ಕ�ಮ �ೈ5ೊಳU$ೇ�ೆಂದು �ೋರು?ೆ@ೕ�ೆ ."

¶86

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:6827 CRL.A No. 291 of 2013

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

On the basis of the complaint, the Police have registered FIR in Crime No.122/2006 against accused No.1-Manjunatha, accused No.2 - Savithri and accused No.3 - unknown person for the offences under Sections 120B, 307, 324 and 34 IPC and submitted the FIR to the Court on 08.05.2006.

¶89

PW.1-Shivaji Rao has deposed as to the contents of Ex.P.1. He has specifically stated in his examination-inchief that he does not know accused No.4 - R.Shankara and accused No.5 - Kumar and he has not seen them. He is a hearsay witness.

¶90

PW.2 - Vishweshwaraiah, who is the spot

¶91

mahazar witness has deposed regarding the mahazar conducted by the Police as per Ex.P.2.

¶92

PW.3 - B.Mani has deposed as to the mahazar

¶93

conducted by the Police as per Ex.P.3 and he is partly turned hostile.

¶94

14 -

¶95

NC: 2026:KHC:6827 CRL.A No. 291 of 2013

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

PW.4 - Vedashree, who is a victim has deposed in her evidence that she is acquainted with the name of accused No.4. However, she has deposed in her evidence that somebody has assaulted her towards back side with long. She has not specifically stated that accused No.4 has assaulted her.

¶98

PW.5 - Adarsha, who is the son of PW.1, is said to be the eyewitness. He has deposed in his evidence that one accused was holding a knife in his hand and showing the knife and another accused has assaulted his elder sister with long on her head. But he has not disclosed the name of accused No.4.

¶99

PW.6 - Lakshmi is a hearsay witness, has not deposed anything against accused No.4.

¶100

PW.7 - D.Jagannath is a hearsay witness, has not

¶101

deposed anything against accused No.4.

¶102

15 -

¶103

NC: 2026:KHC:6827 CRL.A No. 291 of 2013

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

PW.8 - Pushpa has not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶106

PW.12 - Premavathi and PW.13 - Kousalya have not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶107

PW.10 - Dr.L.C.Nagarathnamma has deposed as

¶108

to the examination of the injured Vedashree-PW.4 and issued wound certificate as Ex.P.13.

¶109

PW.14 - Venkatachala G., who is a Police Constable, has deposed in his evidence that on 07.05.2006, when he was on duty, at the instruction of S.H.O., he went to NIMHANS, wherein PW.4-Vedashree was admitted. The Medical Officer has handed over one blood-stained chudidar to him. He handed over the same to the Investigating Officer and gave a Report as per Ex.P.19.

¶110

PW.9 - Amanulla Khan, PW.11 - Bhadramma K.R., PW.15 - Mohammad Aslam and PW.16 -

¶111

16 -

¶112

NC: 2026:KHC:6827 CRL.A No. 291 of 2013

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

V.P.Upadhya, who are the Police officials have deposed as

¶115

to their respective investigation.

¶116

PW.17 - Dr.Anirudh has deposed in his evidence

¶117

as to the examination of PW.4 - Vedashree in NIMHANS.

¶118

PW.18 - Gangaraju, who is the salesman, said to be the attestor to Exs.P.4 and P.25. He has not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶119

On careful examination of the entire evidence on record, it is crystal clear that PW.1 is not the eyewitness. He has not disclosed the name of the accused in his complaint. In the complaint, PW.1 has clearly stated that his son is the eyewitness to this incident. His son is examined as PW.5. He has not disclosed the name of accused No.4 in his evidence.

¶120

The statement of PW.4-Vedashree recorded by the Investigating Officer on 10.05.2006 does not reveal the name of accused No.4 as per Exs.D2.

¶121

NC: 2026:KHC:6827 CRL.A No. 291 of 2013

¶122

17 -

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

Ex.P.13-wound certificate reveals that the

¶125

injured Vedahshree-PW.4 was admitted to the hospital with history of assault by somebody with chopper. The name of the present accused No.4 was not disclosed in the wound certificate.

¶126

Viewed from any angle, I do not find any cogent, convincing, clinching, corroborative evidence to convict the accused No.4, i.e., the appellant. However, the trial Court has convicted the appellant-accused No.4 for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, which is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the trial Court is not justified in convicting accused No.4 for the offence under Section 326 of IPC. Hence, I answer point No.i in negative .

¶127

Regarding Point No.2:

¶128

For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:

¶129

18 - NC: 2026:KHC:6827 CRL.A No. 291 of 2013

¶130

HC-KAR

¶131

ORDER

¶132

i. The appeal is allowed ;

¶133

ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 31.01.2013 passed in S.C.No.9/2007 by the FTC-10, Bengaluru, is set-aside. Consequently, the appellant-accused No.4 is acquitted of the offence under Section 326 of IPC;

¶134

iii. The bail bond of the appellant-accused shall stand cancelled;

¶135

iv. The fine amount deposited if any by the appellant-accused, shall be returned to him in accordance with law.

¶136

Registry is directed to send the copy of this order

¶137

along with records to the concerned Court.

¶138

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶139

CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

R Shankar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Shankar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Y. Patil Vs Sri R. Ashokan

Sri S G Prabhudeva Vs M Shayeen

Sri.Satish Raju.J Vs Sri.R.Prakash

Sri Chowdesha Vs Sri M Nanjundegowda

Chanchaiah Vs State by Mandya East Police

The Builders Ngv Club Vs Sri B GANESH(P1147)