##PAGE1##

- 1 -

CRL.A No.271 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.271 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

MR. KALAPUTRA

S/O.VENKANAGOWDA,

R/AT. HARAPANNAHALLI,

HARAPANNAHALLI POST,

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583131.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. B.S. MURALI, ADV.)

AND:

1. STATE BY HARAPANAHALLI POLICE

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BANGALORE-560001.

2. MR. MALTHESH

S/O. SAMBAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

3. MR. RAGHAVENDRA,

S/O. SAMBAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 ARE

R/O. ANJANEYA EXTENSION,

HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583131.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1,

SRI. IJARI NAGARAJA, ADV. FOR R2 & R3.)

- 2 -

CRL.A No.271 of 2013

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING

TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2008 PASSED BY THE

JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI IN C.C.NO.669/2008 AND

CONSEQUENTLY REMAND THE MATTER FOR FRESH TRIAL, FOR

THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 504, 355, 323 R/W 34 OF IPC.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 22.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR

"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CAV JUDGMENT

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the

judgment of acquittal dated 31.12.2008 passed in

C.C.No.669/2008 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Harapanahalli (for short "the trial Court").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Harapanahalli Police Station submitted

the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under

Sections 341, 504, 323, 355 read with Section 34 of Indian

Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 05^th

August, 2008 at 11.00 am, when CW1-Kalaputra was

constructing the house through labourers in Harappanahalli

accused approached him, and with a common object wrongfully

- 3 -

CRL.A No.271 of 2013

restrained him to put-up construction and in this regard when

CW1 was proceeding to police station to file a complaint, the

accused abused CW1, CW7 and CW8 in filthy language and

caught hold of the shirt of CW1 and assaulted him with slipper

and also assaulted him with his hands and legs, thereby

voluntarily caused simple hurt. Thus, the accused have

committed the alleged offence.

4. After filing charge sheet, case was registered.

Accused had appeared before the trial Court and enlarged on

bail. The trial Court has framed the charges and same were

read-over and explained to the accused. Having understood the

same accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all 8 witnesses

were examined as PW1 to PW8. Seven documents were marked

as Exhibits P1 to P7. Two material objects were marked as

MOs.1 and 2.

6. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. Accused have totally

denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, they

did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.

- 4 -

CRL.A No.271 of 2013

7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial

Court acquitted the accused for the alleged offences. Being

aggrieved by this judgment of acquittal, the appellant has

preferred the Criminal Revision Petition before this Court in

Crl.RP.No.642/2009. This Criminal Revision petition is

converted as Criminal Appeal No.271/2013.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant would submit that the trial Court has miserably failed

to appreciate the evidence and documents on record in

accordance with law and facts. The evidence on record, beyond

all reasonable doubt, establishes the fact that on 05.08.2008 at

about 11.30 a.m., when the appellant was in the process of

repairing the structure, respondent Nos.2 and 3 approached

him and prevented him from proceeding further. It is also

borne out from the evidence that the respondent Nos.2 and 3

abused the complainant/a