Smt. Nanjamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jul 2026CRL.RP/1559/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC criminal revision — conviction of mother-in-law under Sections 341 & 323 IPC quashed; omnibus statement of victim insufficient without overt act, date, time or place; eyewitnesses hostile; wound certificate Ex.P5 showed no stomach injury; separate residence admission; CRL.RP No. 1559 of 2022; Cnr KAHC010575402022; H.P. Sandesh J; acquittal; appellate confirmation held erroneous.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition allowed; the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 IPC set aside, and the accused consequently acquitted of those offences. ¶order (b)

Smt. Nanjamma Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶order (b)

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court and the appellate Court committed an error in convicting the accused (revision petitioner, accused No.2) for the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 323 IPC, and whether the conviction and its confirmation suffer from illegality and incorrectness.

¶8

Court's answer

Accused No.2 cannot be convicted under Sections 341 and 323 IPC merely because she is the mother-in-law, when there is only an omnibus statement against her and none of the ingredients of those offences is made out; there is no specific overt act and no particulars of date/time/place of the alleged assault by accused No.2.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Both the trial Court and the appellate Court failed to appreciate that acceptance of the omnibus statement of P.W.2 would lead to miscarriage of justice; accordingly the framed point was answered affirmatively, i.e., the conviction and its confirmation suffer from illegality and incorrectness.

¶9

Key takeaways

The wound certificate marked as Ex.P5 nowhere discloses that the victim suffered injury to the stomach, so the allegation that accused No.2 inflicted a stomach injury finds no corroboration beyond P.W.2's omnibus statement.ratio¶9
Cross-examination categorically established that the mother-in-law (accused No.2) was staying separately in a rented house while the couple resided at Kempanahalli Village, which clearly discloses she was not residing with them, undermining the attribution of the assault to her; the appellate Court instead proceeded only on hypothetical reasons.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. by Smt. Nanjamma (accused No.2, mother-in-law of the complainant/victim P.W.2) against her conviction under Sections 341 and 323 IPC, confirmed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura (Chinthamani) on 14.10.2022 in Crl.A.No.67/2018, which had upheld the 22.02.2018 conviction in C.C.No.461/2011 (Addl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Sidlaghatta). The High Court held that, apart from P.W.2's omnibus statement, there was no specific overt act, date, time or place attributing the assault to the petitioner; other eyewitnesses turned hostile; the Ex.P5 wound certificate disclosed no stomach injury; and cross-examination showed the petitioner lived separately in a rented house. Conviction without the ingredients of Ss.341/323 IPC would cause miscarriage of justice; the framed point was answered affirmatively, the revision petition was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted. (H.P. Sandesh J; decided 24.07.2026.)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:38401 CRL.RP No. 1559 of 2022

¶3

CNR: KAHC010575402022

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1559 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. NANJAMMA W/O CHIKKADIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT SIDARTHANAGAR SIDLAGHATTA TOWN 562 105 CHIKKABALAPURA DISTRICT

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. SUPRITHA K H, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE 560 001 THROUGH P S I. TOWN POLICE STATION SIDLAGHATTA 562 105.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 14.10.2022 IN CRL.A.NO.67/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:38401 CRL.RP No. 1559 of 2022

¶20

¶21

CNR: KAHC010575402022

¶22

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHKKABALLAPURA SITTING AT CHINTHAMANI, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 22.02.2018 IN C.C.NO.461/2011 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, AT SIDLAGHATTA, ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF THE ALLEGED CHARGES AND THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BE ALLOWED.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also learned HCGP for respondent/State.

¶26

This petition is filed by accused No.2. to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and which is confirmed by the appellate Court.

¶27

The factual matrix of the case of complainant before the trial Court are that based on the complaint filed by one Smt. Narayanamma that on 06.07.2011 at 10.00 a.m. both the accused picked up quarrel alleging that P.W.2 got relationship with somebody else, made her to stand to the wall in the front side of the house, tied her

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:38401 CRL.RP No. 1559 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CNR: KAHC010575402022

¶31

two hands to the windows like a crucifix, the appellant pulled her hairs, assaulted with hands on chest and cheek, she also kicked the stomach causing pain, both the accused posed threat. Smt. Sunandamma who is P.W.6 and Smt. Vasanthamma who is P.W.1 rescued and brought her to police station and lodged report as per Ex.P7. The cognizance was taken and the accused was secured. She pleaded not guilty and claims trial.

¶32

In order to prove the case, complainant

¶33

examined as P.W.2 and also examined other witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 19 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to 19 and also marked M.O.1 and M.O.2. On the other hand, accused did not choose to appear and even not examined any witnesses and also no documents are produced on his behalf. The trial Court, considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and based on the material available on record convicted and sentenced the accused. The same is challenged before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.67/2018.

¶34

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:38401 CRL.RP No. 1559 of 2022

¶37

CNR: KAHC010575402022

¶38

The appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record, confirm the order of the trial Court by dismissing the appeal filed by accused. Being aggrieved by the said orders of trial Court as well as the appellate Court, the revision petitioner is before this Court in the present revision petition.

¶39

The counsel would vehemently contended that

¶40

the trial Court considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and also having perused the evidence of P.W.1, only a omnibus statement is made that mother-in-law also used to assault her, suspecting her fidelity and also tied her and assaulted her stomach, as a result, she lost her conscious. Further, she contend that there is no role of mother-in-law and no documents are required to substantiate the same, except the omnibus statement made in the chief evidence of P.W.2, no other material is produced. Even wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P5 also does not support the case of P.W.2.

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:38401 CRL.RP No. 1559 of 2022

¶43

¶44

CNR: KAHC010575402022

¶45

The counsel also brought to notice of this Court

¶46

that in the cross examination, accused categorically admitted that her mother-in-law was residing in a rented premises and herself and her husband were staying at Kempanahalli Village. The other eyewitnesses have turned hostile and not any other evidence in order to bring the offence under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC.

¶47

Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent/State would submit that the evidence of P.W.1 is the only evidence available before the Court in order to attract Sections 341 as well as 323 of IPC and her evidence is consistent.

¶48

Having heard the counsel for revision petitioner and also learned HCGP for respondent/State, no other evidence available before the Court except the evidence of P.W.2 and the point that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:38401 CRL.RP No. 1559 of 2022

¶50

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

CNR: KAHC010575402022

¶53

Whether the trial Court and the appellate Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC and confirmation made by the appellate Court and the same suffers from its legality and correctness?

¶54

Having heard the counsel for revision petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for respondent/State, and also the case of prosecution while invoking Sections 323, 341 of IPC and other offences, and the specific contention of the appellant before the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.67/2018 also, the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of PWs.3, 4, and 6. Though they are called as eyewitnesses, PWs.1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have also deposed to the effect that they are not aware of the complaint and also they have not given any statements and the same was not considered. But the trial Court having perused the material on record mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.2 while convicting the accused and having perused the evidence of P.W.1, nowhere it is found

¶55

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:38401 CRL.RP No. 1559 of 2022

¶58

CNR: KAHC010575402022

¶59

that she was wrongfully restrained by this revision petitioner and in paragraph No.14 however while coming to the appreciation of evidence, committed an error considering omnibus statement that this revision petitioner also assaulted the accused. But not stated on what date and at what time and where she was subjected to assault. In the cross-examination, the accused categorically admits that her mother-in-law was staying separately in a rented house and herself and her husband residing at Kempanahalli Village. This fact also clearly discloses that the mother-in-law was not residing along with her and there is a clear admission to that effect. When such being the case and when the other witnesses have turned hostile, the only evidence available before the Court is P.W.2. and the said evidence is also not consistent except making an omnibus statement that mother-in-law used to assault her and she was also assaulted on her stomach.

¶60

But wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P5, nowhere discloses that she had suffered injury to the stomach.

¶61

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:38401 CRL.RP No. 1559 of 2022

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

CNR: KAHC010575402022

¶64

Having considered the nature of injuries found in Ex.P5 and also the evidence of P.W.2, the same must inspire the confidence of the Court with regard to the very role of this revision petitioner and fails to take note of omnibus statement made by P.W.2 during her evidence. During the course of cross examination, when categorical admissions are made, both husband and wife are residing separately and mother-in-law also residing separately and ought to have stated before the Court that on the particular date, mother-in-law came to their house and assaulted and the same is not found and the appellate Court also fails to consider the grounds which have been urged. The appellate Court mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.2. In paragraph No. 62 says that she is the victim and she has stated that she and accused No. 1 were residing at Kempanahally Village and the appellant is residing in a rented house. But how this evidence would show that the appellant was not residing with accused no. 1 and victim is unexplained. When such observation is

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:38401 CRL.RP No. 1559 of 2022

¶67

¶68

CNR: KAHC010575402022

¶69

made by the appellate Court also, only comes to the conclusion that considering the evidence of P.W.2, in the cross-examination, when suggestion was made that accused No.1 has a house at Siddhartha Nagara and witness was pleaded his ignorance. But he clearly admitted that he has let the house to accused No.2, that is the revision petitioner herein and even accepted that the house was taken on rent by the accused No.2. This will not show that accused No.1 was not residing in the said house and only on hypothetical reasons, the appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. That means that it cannot be held that accused No.1 is not residing along with accused No.2. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that accused no. 2 had inflicted the injury to stomach of victim. But there is no corroboration to the effect that P.W.2 only inflicted the injury. Having taken note of evidence available on record, except the evidence of P.W.2, no other corroboration. Except an omnibus statement against accused No.2 and

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:38401 CRL.RP No. 1559 of 2022

¶71

10 -

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

CNR: KAHC010575402022

¶74

merely because she is a mother-in-law, she cannot be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC without any of the ingredients of the offences under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC. Both the Courts failed to consider that the same and hence the order of the trial Court and also the appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness and fails to consider that the omnibus statement of P.W.2 which leads to miscarriage of justice if it is accepted. When there is no specific overtact and also the particulars of date assaulted as the victim by accused No.2. Under the circumstances, I answered the point as affirmative.

¶75