Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Kar) 503

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, G. BASAVARAJA, JJ.
State of Karnataka - Appellant
Versus
B.V. Sindhu - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 100026 of 2025, Criminal Appeal Nos. 100305, 100354, 100355, 100356, 100357, 100358, 100370, 100371 of 2024
Decided On : 20-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M.B. Gundawade
For the Respondents: N.D. Gunde, Hanumesh M. Desai, Jagadish Patil, B.V. Somapur, Ashok R. Kalyanshetty

Prosecution must prove criminal conspiracy and associated charges beyond reasonable doubt; mere affidavits of accused about falsehood without corroborative evidence do not sustain convictions.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 195, 211, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 149 - Criminal Appeal - Charges of criminal conspiracy, forgery, and false accusations against public servant were challenged following a conviction by the trial court, which imposed sentences for multiple offenses - The prosecution alleged that the accused attempted to tarnish the complainant's reputation due to workplace envy, leading to false complaints and legal action - Several complaints filed by the complainant were eventually found baseless by various authorities, leading to dismissal of the complaints in 'B' reports - The court found that failure to take action against the complainant for filing false cases led to the acquittal of the accused. (Paras 127-130)

Table of Content
1. details on appeals and procedural background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. factual background of prosecutions against t.b. majjagi. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. details on investigations and findings against accused. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. arguments by defense highlighting procedural flaws. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. submission by accused arguing against charges. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. court's analysis and observations on procedural justice. (Para 36 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 42)
7. outcome and judgment of the court. (Para 118 , 119 , 120)

JUDGMENT :

G. BASAVARAJA, J.

1. These appeals and Criminal Revision Petition are preferred against the Judgment of conviction dated 25^th June, 2024 and order on sentence dated 27^th June, 2024 passed in SC No.262 of 2019 by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi (for short hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”.)

2. Criminal Appeal No.100026 of 2025 is preferred by the State under Section 377 of Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 418 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhit seeking enhancement of punishment by modifying the sentence dated 27^th June 2024 and imposing maximum sentence as provided for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 195, 211, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code .

3. Criminal Appeals No.100354, 100355, 100356, 100357, 100358, 100370 & 100371 of 2024 are preferred by the accused 2 to 13 in SC No.262 of 2019, challenging the Judgment of conviction dated 25^th June 2024 and order on Sentence dated 27^th June 2024 passed in SC No.262 of 2019 by the trial Court.

4. Complainant-Tukaram Balesh Majjagi has preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.100305 of 2024 under Sections 397 & 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the sentence dated 27^th June, 2024 passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge in SC No.262 of 2019, seeking enhancement of sentence, which the statutes prescribe.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank and status before the trial Court.

Factual matrix of the case

6. Brief facts leading to these appeals and Revision Petition are that, Police Inspector of Malmaruti Police Station, Belagavi filed charge-sheet, against accused No.1 only, in Crime No.44, 45 & 46 of 2017. All the three Crimes were merged together for offences punishable under Sections 195, 211, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The Investigating Officer dropped filing of charge-sheet against other accused, viz. Nataji Peeraji Patil, Ajit Mayappa Pujari, Mallasarja Shivarai Shapurakar, Subhash Mallappa Hullolli, Irappa Mahadev Pattar, Mallikarjun Sangappa Radiyal, Bheemappa Lenkappa Godalkundaragi, Rajendra Bhupal Halingali and Suresh Kallappa Kamble. After filing of charge sheet, jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance against accused No.1 for the abovesaid offences and case was registered in CC No.256 of 2019. After its committal to the Court of Sessions, case came to be registered in SC No.262 of 2019. Subsequently, as per the order of trial Court dated 30^th June 2020 passed on the application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, other accused are arrayed as accused 2 to 13 in the case, to face trial along with accused No.1.

7. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 12^th February 2017, Complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1), filed three complaints before Malmaruti Police Station, Belagavi against accused 1 to 10. In the complaints it is stated that the complainant was working as Executive Engineer (Operation & Maintenance) in HESCOM, Rural Division, Belagavi between 26^th June 2014 and 03^rd February 2015. During the said period, accused were also working in various Sections and in different capacities in HESCOM, Rural Division, Belagavi. The complainant worked sincerely with dedication and devotion for more than thirty years in the Organisation. He was known for his efficiency in the department and in that regard, he has also re