Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 372
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. G. UMA, J.
Sri. Puttaraju, S/o. Late Sri. Lakkegowda and Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Karnataka, By The Station House Officer K.R. Pet Rural Police Station Mandya District – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1062 of 2013 (C) C/W Criminal Appeal No. 1180 of 2013 (A)
Decided On : 24-06-2025
For the Appellants :Sri. Satyanarayana Chalke S., Advocate
For the Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, ADDL. SPP.
Failure to follow necessary legal procedures in case-counter cases may result in trial vitiation, affecting justice outcomes.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 324 and 326 - Conviction and acquittal concerning mutual assaults - Accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted for Section 324 and Section 326 by Trial Court, but acquitted on other charges - The Full Bench held there is no statute for procedure in case and counter cases, but failure to follow due process can vitiate trials when it causes prejudice - As evidence from different cases cannot be considered in a single trial, the convictions were found unsupported by material and therefore reversed. (Paras 11-15)
(B) Procedure in criminal trials - It is necessary to follow due procedure in trial to prevent failure of justice - Each case must be judged on the evidence presented therein. (Para 12)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial appeals and convictions overview (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. summary of factual background and initial court actions (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments regarding procedural fairness (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's analysis of trials for case and counter case (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. examination of the evidence and procedural irregularities (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. final conclusions and orders regarding appeals (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
(M. G. UMA, J.)
The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1062 of 2013 being accused Nos.1 and 2 in SC No.105 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya, (for short 'the Trial Court'), are impugning the judgment of conviction dated 30.09.2013 and order of sentence dated 03.10.2013 convicting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, and convicting accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC, with default sentences, while acquitting them for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 307 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The defacto complainant in SC No.52 of 2012 before the Trial Court, is seeking to set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 30.09.2013 and to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 307 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, on 19.11.2009 at about 8.30 p.m., when PWs.3 to 5 in SC No.105 of 2010 went near milk dairy, accused Nos.1 and 2 who are having ill-will against them came to the spot and picked up quarrel. Accused No.1 held PW3 with his neck, accused No.2 bit the left hand index finger of PW3. When PWs.4 and 5 tried to intervene in the matter, accused No.2 assaulted PW4 with soda bottle on his head. Immediately, accused No.1 snatched the said bottle and assaulted PW5.Thereby caused injuries to PWs.3 to 5.
4. In SC No.52 of 2012, the prosecution witnesses in SC No.105 of 2010 are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3. It is stated that on the same date, time and place, these accused have assaulted PWs.4 and 8 who are none other than accused Nos.1 and 2 in SC No.105 of 2010 and assaulted and caused injuries. Thereby, they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 324, 326, 307 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.
5. In SC No.105 of 2010, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The accused appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and identified MOs.1 to 5. The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but not led any evidence nor got marked any documents in support of their defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused have preferred Criminal Appeal No.1062 of 2013.
6. In SC No.52 of 2012, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The accused appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and identified MOs.1 and 2. The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but not led any evidence nor got marked any documents in support of their defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against them. Being aggrieved by the same, the defacto complainant has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1180 of 2013 seeking to set aside the impugned judgment of
