IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 540 OF 2018 (A)

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BALUR POLICE, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU -01 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

AND:

SRI B S ASHWATH S/O B L SHRINIVASA GOWDA AGRICULTURIST, R/O BILAGALI VILLAGE BALUR HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK-577132 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A.N. RADHAKRISHNA, ADV.)

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C BY THE N Location: High STATE P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE Court of Karnataka AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.10.2017 PASSED IN C.C.NO.621/2013 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MUDIGERE THEREBY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504,323 AND 324 OF IPC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant/State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 06.10.2017 passed in CC No.621/2013 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere (for short "the trial Court").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their status before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, Balur police have submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code.

4. It is alleged by the prosecution that, on

01.04.2012 in the afternoon, within the jurisdiction of the Balur Police Station in Bilagali Village at the barren land in Survey No.20 and 26 near the Halla, when CW1 was grazing the cattle belonging to Subbashetty, the accused asked why he is grazing the cattle in his land and abused him in filthy language. The accused dragged CW1, tore his shirt and slapped him. The accused has also pounded upon the testicles of CW1 with the back of his of gun.

Thus, the accused has committed the alleged offences.

5. After filing the charge-sheet, case was registered in CC No.621 of 2013. Accused was enlarged on bail.

6. Upon hearing on charges, trial Court has framed the charges for the commission of alleged offences. Same were read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To prove the case of the prosecution in all, 12 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW2. 21 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P21. Two material objects were marked as MOs.1 and 2. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.

8. The accused has filed his written-statement, wherein it is stated that his father has obtained permanent injunction in respect of land in Survey No.20. He has stated that brother of PW6-Sathish is working as a Police Officer and upon his investigation, Ramesh, CPI, Mudigere, has filed a false case against him. Further, he has stated that PW12 has forced him to keep the gun on the table of PSI and in this regard the accused has lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police which is marked as Exhibit D4. The accused counsel has confronted three documents to PW1 and got marked as Exhibits D1 to D3 and he also confronted a document-Exhibit D4 to PW12.

9. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the appellant/State has preferred this appeal.

10. Learned High Court Government Pleader Sri B.Lakshman, would submit that the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to the oral and documentary evidence on record. PW1 is the complainant/victim. He has clearly stated in his evidence that accused abused and assaulted him. The compla