Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1948 OF 2013

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 4531 of 2009)

GANESHA

..… APPELLANT

VERSUS

SHARANAPPA & ANR.

..... RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

Petitioner, besides three other accused, was

put on trial for offence under Section 341, 323,

324 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code. Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

Yadgiri Taluk, Gulbarga District, Karnataka, by its

judgment and order dated 14^th of September, 2006

passed in CC No. 355 of 2006, acquitted them of all

the charges.

Page 2

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the informant

preferred Criminal Revision Petition No. 147 of

2007 and the High Court, by the impugned judgment

and order dated 5^th of August, 2008 maintained the

order of acquittal of all accused persons,

excepting accused no. 3, Ganesha who has been held

guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324

of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of six months and

also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default

of payment of fine, to undergo further simple

imprisonment for a period of three months.

It is against this order that Ganesha has

preferred this special leave petition.

Leave granted.

The prosecution was set in motion on the basis

of a report given by the informant, Sharanappa,

inter alia, alleging that he made a protest when he

saw the accused persons grazing their cattle in his

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

land and thereby damaging the mulberry crop. It

was alleged that Ganesha, the appellant herein

assaulted the informant with a Badige (stick) which

caused injury near his left eye. The rest of the

prosecution story is not being narrated as the

accused who have allegedly participated in that

have been acquitted and we are not concerned with

that in the present appeal. The trial court, on

appraisal of the evidence, came to the conclusion

that the prosecution has not been able to prove its

case beyond all reasonable doubt and, accordingly,

acquitted all the accused. However, in revision,

the High Court re-appraised the evidence and found

the reasoning assigned by the trial court to be

totally perverse and contrary to the evidence on

record. The High Court relied on the evidence of

Sharanappa, the informant (PW-2), Maremma (PW-4),

Sujatha (PW-5) and Hussainappa (PW-6), who claimed

to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The

High Court found Maremma (PW-4) and Hussainappa

(PW-6) to be the independent eye-witnesses and

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

reliable. The High Court further observed that the

evidence of Dr. Surekha (PW-1), who examined the

injured and gave the wound certificate (Exhibit 2)

corroborated the case of the prosecution.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order of

acquittal of the present appellant and convicted

him as above. While doing so, the High Court

observed as follows:

“17. In my view, the aforesaid

reasoning of the trial court is

totally perverse and contrary to the

evidence on record. We have seen from

the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 4, 5 and 6

that all of them have come out

successfully

in

their

cross-

examination and all of them have

spoken to the fact of A-3 assaulting

P.W. 2 with a stick near his left eye

and the other accused persons catching

hold of P.W.2. Furthermore, it is

also clear from the evidence of P.Ws.

2 and 5 that the incident happened in

the land of the complainant when the

cattle belonging to the accused went

to the land of the complainant for

grazing the crop. Therefore, no doubt

arises as to the place of incident.”

Mr. Akshat Shrivastav, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant raises a very

4