IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.823 OF 2018 BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAHADEVAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGLAURU, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-1. … APPELLANT (BY SRI RANGASWAMY R., HCGP)

AND:

RABEENDRA KUMAR MISHRA @ R.K. MISHRA S/O. S.N. MISHRA, AGE 53 YEARS, Digitally signed by NO.272, WRITERS SAFEGUARD BUILDING, MAHALAKSHMI B M NEAR OM FARM CIRCLE, Location: HIGH WHITE FIELD, BENGALURU – 66. … RESPONDENT COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI R.V. SHIVANANDA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3)

CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 23.10.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.1577/2011, ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 OF IPC AND SECTION

30 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT AND ETC.

Date on which the appeal was 10.03.2025 reserved for Judgment Date on which the Judgment was 21.04.2025 pronounced THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR and HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA)

Against the judgment acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act dated 23.10.2017 on the file of LXI Additional Civil City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-62) (‘Sessions Court’ for short), the State is before this Court in this appeal.

2. PW.1, the first informant runs a shop called Mahalakshmi Newspaper and Xerox Centre for 13 years. On 10.08.2011, he opened his shop in the morning at 5.00 a.m. Around 10.00 to 10.10 a.m., a vehicle from a company called Writer Safeguard, driven by R.K. Mishra-

accused arrived at the shop. Accused asked for Rajasthan newspaper priced at Rs.3.50. When asked for change, PW.1 offered chocolate instead of the 50 paisa he requested. Accused got angry, abused PW.1 and pointed a double barrel gun at his chest. When PW.1 pushed the gun away, it fired, grazing his neck and hitting several others nearby. The bullet struck PW.2-Nataraj-pan shop owner on his right thigh, PW.3-Niranjan running a tea stall sustained injury on his right hand and Sanjeev a stranger sustained injuries on left leg. The Hoysala Police, who were nearby, took the injured to the Hospital, and PW.1 filed complaint. The case was registered under Section

307 of IPC along with Section 30 of Indian Arms Act.

3. The Sessions Court acquitted the accused, stating that the testimonies of the witnesses, particularly of PWs.1 to 4, 6, 7 and 17, were contradictory and unreliable. The court found the wound certificate inconsistent with the injuries claimed. It was also observed that misfire suggested was not with intent to harm, and the evidence did not show that the accused intended to commit the offence. Ultimately, the prosecution failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. We have heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the material on record.

5. Learned HCGP for the State argues that when testimony of PW.1 is examined, it clearly shows the elements required to charge the accused under Section 307 of IPC and Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act. The accused’s action, including pointing the gun at PW.1’s chest, and resulting injuries to PW.1, PW.2-Nataraj, PW.3- Niranjan and Sanjeev, fulfilled the criteria of criminal offence. It is submitted that the cross-examination of the witnesses did not provide any significant reason to doubt their testimonies. The victim and the eye witnesses gave consistent and reliable evidence, proving the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Sessions Court should not have disbelieved the