Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs B V Sindhu on 20 June, 2025
-1-
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100026 OF 2025
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100354 OF 2024,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100355 OF 2024,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100356 OF 2024,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100357 OF 2024,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100358 OF 2024,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100370 OF 2024,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100371 OF 2024 &
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100305 OF 2024
IN CRL.A NO.100026/2025
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
MALMARUTI P.S, BELAGAVI
THROUGH THE
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.)
AND:
1. B.V. SINDHU,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
HESCOM, BELAGAVI-570023.
-2-
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
2. NATAJI S/O. PEERAJI PATIL,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: LINEMAN CSD-3,
HESCOM, BELAGAVI,
R/O: H.NO. 882, KANGRALI B.K.
TQ. AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590010.
3. AJIT S/O. MAYAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED AEE,
R/O: H.NO. 88, RAMATEERTH NAGAR,
TQ. AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590015.
4. MALLASARJ S/O. SHIVARAJ SHAPURAKAR,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: LINEMAN,
CSD-3, HESCOM, BELAGAVI,
R/O: LAKSHMI NAGAR, 1ST CROSS,
KAKATI TQ. AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591113.
5. SUBASH S/O. MALLAPPA HULLOLLI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ENGINEER,
HESCOM, BELAGAVI,
R/O: FLAT NO 417, CTS NO.647,
H.D. KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT
BAUXITE ROAD,
TQ. AND DIST.
BELAGAVI-590019.
6. IRAPPA S/O. MAHADEV PATTAR,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: LINEMAN,
RSD-1, HESCOM, GHATAPRABHA,
R/O: H.NO.982, KUMBAR ONI,
NEAR BELLAD BAGEWADI BANK,
GHATAPRABHA, DHUPADAL,
TQ. GOKAK DIST.
BELAGAVI-591102.
7. MALLIKARJUN S/O. SANGAPPA RADIYAL,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC:OVERSEER, CSD-3,
HESCOM, BELAGAVI
R/O: CCB NO.24, KPTCL QUARTERS,
NEHURU NAGAR,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-586109.
-3-
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
8. BHIMAPPA S/O. LENKAPPA GODALKUNDARADI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: SENIOR ASSISTANT,
HESCOM, BELAGAVI
R/O: 1903, NEAR UDAYA SCHOOL,
RAMATEERTH NAGAR,
TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590015.
9. RAJENDRA S/O. BHUPAL HALINGALI,
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC: STATION ATTNDER GRADE-2,
220 KV STATION, INDAL,
R/O: C-1 KPTCL QUARTERS, NEGARU NAGAR,
TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590010.
10 . SURESH S/O. KALLAPPA KAMBLE,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: ACCOUNT OFFICER,
HESCOM, BELAGAVI,
R/O: APMC ROAD, MARKANDEYA NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590019.
11 . IRAYYA S/O. GURAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: LINEMAN CSD-1,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION, HESCOM BELAGAVI,
R/O: RAMAKAMAL BUILDING,
MAIN ROAD, ANANDNAGAR VADAGAON,
TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590005.
12 . MARUTI S/O. BHARAM PATIL
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: LINEMAN TL AND SS SUB DIVISION,
KPTCL BELAGAVI, R/O: NEAR HARASHA HOTEL,
RAMATEERTH NAGAR,
TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590015.
13 . DRAKSHAYANI D/O. MAHADEV NESARAGI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT
R/O: JAKKERI HONDA,
BEHIND MARATHA MANDAL,
MARRIAGE HALL,
TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
-4-
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
(BY SRI N.D.GUNDE & SRI HANUMESH M. DESAI, ADVOCATES
FOR R1, R2 AND R10;
SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. B.V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R13;
SRI. ASHOK R. KALYANSHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR
R4 TO R9, R11 AND R12)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED 418 OF BNSS, (UNDER
SECTION 377 OF CR.P.C), PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN SC NO.262/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND TO PASS AN
ORDER OF ENHANCING THE SENTENCE AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 12 FOR OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120B, 195, 211, 420, 467, 468,
471 R/W. SECTION 149 OF IPC, IN SC NO.262/2019 PASSED
BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BELAGAVI AND MODIFY THE SENTENCE DATED 27.06.2024
AND IMPOSE MAXIMUM SENTENCE AS PROVIDED FOR
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 195, 211, 420,
467, 468, 471 R/W. SECTION 149 OF IPC, IN SC NO.262/2019
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BELAGAVI.
IN CRL.A NO.100354/2024
BETWEEN:
AJIT S/O. MAYAPPA PUJARI
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED AEE,
R/O: H.NO. 88, RAMATEERTH NAGAR,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MALMARUTI POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
-5-
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH
AT: DHARWAD-580011.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND
ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION DATED 25.06.2024 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
DATED 27.06.2024 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN SESSIONS CASE 262/2019
FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 195,
211, 420, 467, 468, 471 R/W. 149 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3.
IN CRL.A NO.100355/2024
BETWEEN:
1. MALLASARJ S/O. SHIVARAJ SHAPURAKAR
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: LINEMAN,
CSD-3, HESCOM BELAGAVI,
R/O: LAKSHMI NAGAR,
1ST CROSS, KAKATI, TQ/DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. RAJENDRA S/O. BHUPAL HALINGALI
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC: STATION ATTENDER GRADE-2
220 KV STATION, INDAL
R/O:C-1, KPTCL QURTERS,
NEHARU NAGAR, BELAGAVI,
TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
3. MARUTI S/O. BHARAM PATIL
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: LINEMAN
TL AND SS SUB DIVISION,
KPTCL BELAGAVI,
R/O: NEAR HARSHA HOTEL,
RAMATEERTH NAGAR,
TQ/DIST. BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS
-6-
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
(BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI AND
SRI ASHOK R. KALYANSHETTY, ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MALMARUTI POLICE STATION,
DIST. BELAGAVI
NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH AT DHARWAD
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN
SESSION CASE NO.262/2019 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION DATED 25.06.2024 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
DATED 27.06.2024 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN SESSIONS CASE NO.
262/2019 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 195,
467, 420, 468, 471, 211, 120B R/W. 149 OF IPC AND ACQUIT
THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.4, 9 AND 12.
IN CRL.A NO.100356/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NEETAJI S/O. PEERAJI PATIL
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: LINEMAN,
CSD-3, HESCOM, BELAGAVI,
R/O: H.NO.882, KANGRALI B.K.,
TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. SRI. BHIMAPPA
S/O. LENKAPPA GODALKUNDARADI
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: SENIOR ASSISTANT
HESCOM BELAGAVI,
R/O: 1903, NEAR UDAYA SCHOOL,
RAMATEERTHA NAGAR,
TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI.
-7-
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
3. SRI. SURESH S/O. KALLAPPA KAMBLE
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: ACCOUNT OFFICER
HESCOM BELAGAVI,
R/O. APMC ROAD, MARKANDEYA NAGAR,
BELAGAVI, TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR
APPELLANT NOS. 1 AND 3;
SRI. ASHOK R. KALYANSHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR
APPELLANT NO.2)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BELAGAVI MALMARUTI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD-580001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374
(2) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT
RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED
25.06.2024 AND SENTENCE DATED 27.06.2024 PASSED IN SC
NO.262/2019 BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BELAGAVI, THEREBY CONVICTING THE APPELLANT FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 195, 211, 420,
467, 468 AND 471 R/W. 149 OF IPC, AND SENTENCING THEM
TO UNDERGO TO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT; AND ETC.
IN CRL.A NO.100357/2024
BETWEEN:
SMT. B.V. SINDHU
W/O. SHIVARAM REVENAKAR
AGE. 35 YEARS,
-8-
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
OCC. AEE HESCOM, BELAGAVI,
R/O. LAXMI NAGAR, BELAGAVI,
TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NEELEDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BELAGAVI MALMARUTI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD-580001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374
(2) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT
RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED
25.06.2024 AND SENTENCE DATED 27.06.2024 PASSED IN SC
NO.262/2019 BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE.
BELAGAVI, THEREBY CONVICTING THE APPELLANT FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 195, 211, 420,
467, 468 AND 471 R/W 149 OF IPC, AND SENTENCING THEM
TO UNDERGO TO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT; AND ETC.
IN CRL.A NO.100358/2024
BETWEEN:
DRAKSHAYANI D/O. MAHADEV NESARGI
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE,
R/O. JAKKERI HONDA,
BEHIND MARATHA MANDAL,
MARRIAGE HALL,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY B.V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE)
-9-
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH BELAGAVI MALMARUTI P.S.
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION
DATED 25.06.2024 AND SENTENCE DATED 27.06.2024 PASSED
BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN
S.C NO.262/2019 FOR PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 195
211, 420, 467, 468, 471 AND 120(B) R/W. 149 OF IPC, AND
ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.13 OF THE CHARGES
LEVELED AGAINST HER.
IN CRL.A NO.100370/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. MALLIKARJUN S/O. SANGAPPA RADIYAL
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCC: OVERSEER,
CSD-3, HESCOM, BELAGAVI,
CCB NO.24, KPTCL QUARTERS,
NEHRU NAGAR, AT: BELAGAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI. IRAYYA S/O. GURAYYA HIREMATH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: LINEMAN,
CSD-1, HESCOM,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
HESCOM BELAGAVI,
R/AT: RAMAKAMAL BUILDING,
MAIN ROAD, ANAND NAGAR,
VADAGAON, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK R. KALYANSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
- 10 -
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(MALMARUTI P S BELAGAVI)
BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
OFFICE OF ADVOCATE GENERAL,
HIGH COURT PREMISES,
DHARWAD-580011.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADLL. SPP.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION DATED 25.06.2024 AN ORDER OF SENTENCE
DATED 27.06.2024 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN SC NO.262/2019 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 195, 467, 420, 468,
471, 211, 120B, R/W. SECTION 149 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THEM
OF ALL THE CHARGES.
IN CRL.A NO.100371/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. SUBHASH
S/O. MALLAPPA HULLOLLI
(HALLOLLI),
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCC. JR. ENGINEER,
HESCOM, BELAGAVI,
FLAT NO.417, CTS NO.647,
H.D. KUMARSWAMY LAY OUT,
BAUXITE ROAD,
AT: BELAGAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI. IRAPPA S/O. MAHADEV PATTAR,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. LINEMAN,
PREVIOUSLY AT RSD-1, HESCOM,
GHATAPRABHA, H.NO.982,
KUMBAR ONI,
NEAR BELLAD BAGEWADI BANK,
- 11 -
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
GHATAPRABHA, DHUPADAL,
PRESENTLY AS LINEMAN,
HESCOM, BAILHONGAL,
ASHIRWAD BLDG, KOPPAD GALLI,
BAILHONGAL.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK R. KALYANSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(MALMARUTI P S BELAGAVI)
BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
OFFICE OF ADVOCATE GENERAL,
HIGH COURT PREMISES,
DHARWAD-580011.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADLL. SPP.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE, AS REGARDS THEM,
THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 25.06.2024 AN ORDER
OF SENTENCE DATED 27.06.2024 PASSED BY THE PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN SC
NO.262/2019 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 195, 467, 420, 468, 471, 211, 120B, R/W. SECTION
149 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THEM OF ALL THE CHARGES.
IN CRL.RP NO.100305/2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. TUKARAM S/O. BALESH MAJJAGI
AGE. 65 YEARS,
OCC. RTD. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
IN HESCOM, BELAGAVI
R/O. CTS NO. 4867/10,
1ST A 2ND CROSS SAMPIGE ROAD,
SADASHIVANAGAR, BELAGAVI 590 019
...REVISION PETITIONER
(BY SRI. Z.M.HATTARAKI, SRI. A.M. MULLA AND
SRI. M.D. SANADI, ADVOCATES)
- 12 -
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PSI, MALMARUTI POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT DHARWAD BENCH
BUILDING DHARWAD-580011.
2. B.V. SINDHU
AGE. 40 YEARS
OCC. ASST. ENG (ELE) HESCOM,
BELAGAVI
R/AT: CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD.,
CORPORATE OFFICE CESC,
HINDAKAL ROAD MYSORE,
RESIDING NOW AT: EWS-227,
KUVEMPUNAGAR,
TQ AND DIST: MYSORE-570023.
3. NATAJI S/O. PERJI PATIL
AGE. 60 YEARS
OCC. LINEMAN, CSD-3, HESCOM BELAGAVI
(NOW RETIRED )
R/O: H.NO-882 KAGRALI B.K
TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI
NOW R/O: PLOT NO 12, R.S. NO. 38/A
VAIBHAV NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590010.
RESIDING NOW AT: PLOT NO. 12, RS NO.38/A,
VAIBHAV NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010.
4. AJIT S/O. MAYAPPA PUJARI
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED A.E.E
R/AT. H.NO.88,
RAMATEERTH NAGAR,
BELAGAVI, TQ AND DIST.
BELAGAVI-590015.
- 13 -
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
5. MALLASARJ S/O. SHIVARAI SHAHAPURKAR
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. LINEMAN CSD-3 HESCOM,
NOW AT YAMUNAPUR SECTION,
RSD-II HESCOM, BELAGAVI,
R/O: LAXMI NAGAR, 1ST CROSS, KAKATI,
TAL. DIST. BELAGAVI-591113.
6. SUBHASH S/O. MALLAPPA HULLOLLI
AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. JUNIOR ENGINEER,
NOW AT RSD-2, HONAGA SECTION,
HESCOM BELAGAVI,
R/O: FLAT NO. 417,
CTS NO. 647 H.D.
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
BAUXITE ROAD,
TAL AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590019.
7. IRAPPA S/O. MAHADEV PATTAR
AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. LINEMAN,
RSD-1, HESCOM, GHATAPRABHA,
R/O: H.NO-982, KUMBAR ONI,
NER BELLAD BAGEWADI BANK,
GHATAPRABHA, DHUPADAL,
TQ. GOKAK, BELAGAVI
NOW WORKING AT. BAILHONGAL
NOW WORKING AT. KANTI GALLI,
GOMBIGUDI, BAZAR ROAD, BAILHONGAL,
TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST.
BELAGAVI-591102.
8. MALLIKARJUN S/O. SANGAPPA RADIYAL
AGE. 50 YEARS
OCC. OVERSEERL CSD-3,
HESCOM BELAGAVI
R/O: CCB NO. 24 KPTCL QUARTERS,
NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI
NOW WORKING
AS JR. ENGINEER RURAL SUB DIVISION
HESCOM VIJAYPUR
TQ AND DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586109.
- 14 -
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
9. BHIMAPPA
S/O. LENKAPPA GODALKUNDARAGI
AGE. 61 YEARS
OCC. SR. ASSISTANT (RETIRED)
HESCOM BELAGAVI
R/O: 1903, NEAR UDAY SCHOOL,
RAMATEERTH NAGAR,
TAL. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590015.
10. RAJENDRA S/O. BHUPAL HALINGALI
AGE. 36 YEARS,
OCC. STATION ATTENDER GR-2,
220 KV STATION, INDAL,
R/O: C-1, KPTCL QUARTERS NEHRU NAGAR,
TAL. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590010.
11. SURESH S/O. KALLAPPA KAMBALE
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. ACCOUNTS OFFICER (RTD)
HESCOM BELAGAVI
R/O: APMC ROAD MARKANDY NAGAR, BELAGAVI,
TAL. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590019.
12. IRAYYA S/O. GURAYYA HIREMATH
AGE. 51 YEARS,
OCC. LINE MAN CSD-1
NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
HESCOM BELAGAVI,
R/O: RAMKAMAL BUILDING,
MAIN ROAD, ANANDANAGAR,
VADAGAON,
TAL. AND DIST.
BELAGAVI-590005.
13. MARUTI S/O. BHARAM PATIL
AGE. 63 YEARS,
OCC. LINEMAN (RETD) TL AND
SS SUB-DIVISION KPTCL BELAGAVI
R/O: NEAR HARSHA HOTEL,
RAMATEERTH NAGAR,
TAL. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590015.
- 15 -
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
14. DRAKSHAYANI
W/O. MAHADEV NESARAGI
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. ASSISTANT (RETD),
R/O: JAKKERI HONDA,
BEHIND MARATHA,
MANDAL MARRIAGE HALL,
TAL AND DIST.
BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP. FOR R1;
SRI. N.D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE FOR
R5, R10 & R13;
SRI. ASHOK R. KALYANSHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR
R6 TO R9 & R12;
SRI. B.V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R14;
R11 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR
TRIAL COURT RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
SENTENCE PASSED ON 27.06.2024 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPLE
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 195, 211, 420, 467,
468, 471 R/W. 149 OF IPC AND ENHANCE THE MAXIMUM
SENTENCE WHICH THE STATUTE PRESCRIBED.
THESE APPEALS AND REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 29.04.2025,
COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS", THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
- 16 -
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
These appeals and Criminal Revision Petition are
preferred against the Judgment of conviction dated 25th June,
2024 and order on sentence dated 27th 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
27th 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 25th June 2024 and order on
Sentence dated 27th June 2024 passed in SC No.262 of 2019 by
the trial Court.
– 17 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
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 27th 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
– 18 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
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 30th
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 12th 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 26th June 2014 and
03rd 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 received
– 19 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
certificates and medals from the State and Central
Governments and also from various other Societies. Accused 2
to 10, being unable to tolerate the honours received by the
complainant, with an intention to defame and harass the
complainant so as to cause his suspension, hatched conspiracy
and in collusion with accused No.1, decided to give a false
complaint against the complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1). As a
part of the said conspiracy, on 14th November 2014, the
accused No.1 gave complaint to the Managing Director,
HESCOM, Hubli, alleging that on 13th November 2014 at
Engineers’ Association Building, Belagavi, the complainant-T.B.
Majjagi (PW1), with the co-operation of deceased M.T.
Thakkalaki and one Maruti S Dodamani, gave mental
harassment to her. On the basis of the said complaint, the
Chief Engineer issued memorandum dated 24th February 2015
to Women’s Grievance Redressal Committee to conduct
enquiry. The said Committee, after conducting enquiry and
upon going through (1) Details furnished by the Police
Commissioner, Cyber Crime, Bengaluru as to the call details
and its tower locations; (2) Google map; (3) WhatsApp
messages dated 13th November 2014 pertaining to mobile
– 20 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
No.9439366373 and the statements of witnesses, gave report
to the effect that the allegation of harassment made against the
complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1) in the complaint dated 13th
November 2014, prima facie, appears to be false. Accused
No.1, has not preferred any appeal against the said enquiry
report.
8. With regard to the incident, on 19th November 2014,
accused No.1 gave false complaint before Malmaruti Police
Station in Crime No.286 of 2014 for the offence punishable
under Sections 354A, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code. The Investigating officer, after conducting
enquiry, filed ‘B’ final report on 03rd June 2015 before JMFC-II
Court, Belagavi and the said ‘B’ report was accepted by the
Court on 11th January, 2016. In relation to the alleged incident,
on 22nd January 2015, the accused No.1 has filed a false
complaint against the Complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1) before
Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.19 of 2015 for offences
punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code
and on 06th June, 2015, the Investigating officer has filed ‘B’
final report before the JMFC-II Court, Belagavi and the report
was accepted by the Court on 11th January 2016. Being
– 21 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
aggrieved by the acceptance of said ‘B’ final reports by the
Court, the accused No.1 filed Criminal Revision Petitions in
No.54 and 55 of 2016 before the XI Additional District &
Sessions Court, Belagavi. The said Court, after considering the
averments made in the affidavits filed by the accused No.1,
dismissed the said Criminal Revision Petitions. In the affidavits
filed before the XI Additional District & Sessions Court,
Belagavi, the accused No.1 has stated that the complainant-
T.B. Majjagi (PW1) was a strict and efficient officer. It is also
stated that the accused, not intending to work under the
complainant, used accused No.1 as a tool with an intention to
cause the complainant’s transfer out of Belagavi division. They
abetted and induced accused No.1 to give false complaint
against the complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1) by making
allegations that he attempted to rape her. It is also stated that
the accused created false circumstances, so as to defame the
complainant in the society, made false allegations through
Women’s Association and through electronic and print media
against the complainant stating that, he, with co-operation of
M.T.Thakkalaki and Maruti S. Dodamani, tried to rape her and
physically harassed her. They have also made false allegations
– 22 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
against him to the Malmaruti Police Station; to the Managing
Director, HESCOM, Hubli; to the President State Women’s
Commission; to the Human Rights Commission; to the Chief
Minister; and to the Home Minister and caused injustice to him.
9. In the said complaint, accused No.1 has also stated that
on 13th November, 2014 at about 1.00 PM, when she was
working in the office, the complainant with the help of her
higher officer one Sri Karur, Assistant Executive Engineer,
called her and informed that the PW1 called her to the Stores to
discuss about repair of a HESCOM Lorry. It is also stated that
when she went to Stores, there M.T. Thakkalaki told her that
the complainant called her to Engineers’ Association. When she
went to Engineers’ Association Building, complainant switched
off her cellphone and asked her as to why she had not come to
the hotel, abused her in filthy language, dragged her here and
there; and M.T.Thakkalaki and Maruti S.Dodamani threatened
her of dire consequences as she, at the instigation and help of
accused 2 to 10, gave false complaint against Complainant-T.B.
Majjagi (PW1), M.T. Thakkalaki and Maruti S. Dodamani (PW2),
to the Managing Director, HESCOM, Hubli.
– 23 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
10.Accused No.1 has stated in the affidavits that, on 19th
November 2014, making false allegations against the
complainant-TB Majjiagi (PW1), she gave complaint to
Malmaruti Police station in Crime No.286 of 2014 for the
offences punishable under Section 354A, 341, 504, 506, read
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, which complaint came to
be registered against T.B. Majjagi, M.T.Thakkalaki and Maruti S.
Dodamani. But, no such incident had taken place. It is stated
that on 13th November 2014 she had not been called through
the phone of Sri Karur, she did not go to Engineers’ Association
Building between 1:00 & 2:30 pm, and at that time, she was at
property bearing No.373, CTS No.8810 of M.M. Extension. She
has also stated that due to the abetment of accused 2 to 10,
with an intention to cause transfer of complainant-T.B. Majjagi
(PW1) out of Belagavi Division and also due to official enmity
against M.T. Thakkalaki and Maruti S. Dodamani and to tarnish
their reputation, she has filed false complaint. In the affidavits,
it is also stated that on 18th January 2015, when she had been
to Mysore, one Pramod who is very close to Chief Minister,
called her to office and by contacting PW1 over his mobile,
made the accused No.1 talk to PW1. In the said conversation,
– 24 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
PW1 told the accused No.1 that nobody will marry her as the
matter has also appeared in print and electronic media and by
giving life threat to her, he asked her to take back the
complaint. Alleging same, she has filed complaint on 22nd
January, 2015 before Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.19
of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 & 506
of Indian Penal Code. In the affidavit, she has also stated that
she does not know Pramod and because accused 2 to 10 had
forced her, she has filed the said false complaint against the
complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1). She has also stated that
though the said incident had not taken place, she gave false
information to the print and electronic media and to Women’s
Association stating about the occurrence of alleged incident.
She has also stated that PW1 has not threatened her and she
has filed the said complaint only at the instance of accused 2 to
10. On the basis of said complaint, the Investigating officer
arrested PW1-T.B. Majjagi on 19th November, 2014 and
produced him before the JMFC-II Court, Belagavi and he was
sent to judicial custody. On the ground of ill-health, the
complainant took treatment in BIMS Hospital, Belagavi from
19th to 24th November, 2014 and the Court has enlarged him on
– 25 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
bail on 24th November, 2014. Against the said order, accused
No.1 filed application before the II Additional Fast Track Court,
Belagavi, seeking cancellation of bail and the Court rejected the
said Bail application on 28th September 2015.
11. On 05th December 2014, accused No.2, though was not
the Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union and also being
fully aware that the accused No.1 by colluding with other
accused has given false complaint with an intention to defame
the complainant and cause his suspension from service, by
projecting himself as the Vice-President of the KPTCL
Employees Union and by using the Letterhead of the
Association, has written letter to the Superintending Engineer,
HESCOM, Belagavi seeking to suspend complainant-T.B. Majjagi
(PW1). The accused No.2, though was not the Vice-President of
the Association, by colluding with other accused, has created
false documents and has written the said letter. On the basis of
said letter, the Superintending Engineer, HESCOM, Belagavi,
addressed letter dated 10th December, 2014 to the Chief
Engineer, HESCOM, Hubli to take action against the PW1-T.B.
Majjagi. With regard to the said incident, Sri Jagadish Shettar,
Leader of Opposition, has also made submission to the Speaker
– 26 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
on 17th December 2014 during zero hours to suspend the
complainant from service and further on 19th December 2014,
the said fact was also raised during Sessions at Belagavi.
12. It is also stated that on 03rd February 2015, accused
No.1 made another complaint against complainant-T.B. Majjagi
(PW1) before Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.26 of 2015
for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 511, 109 of
Indian Penal Code alleging that being unable to bear the mental
harassment given by PW1 forcing her to take back the
complaints, on 29th January, 2015 at about 4.00 am, she made
an attempt to commit suicide by consuming expired/date-
barred tablets viz. Meftal forte and spass. In the said crime,
the Investigating Officer has filed ‘B’ final report. In the said
crime, the complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1) was in judicial
custody for nine days. Further, Crime No.26 of 2015 was
registered against accused No.1 for the offence punishable
under Sections 309, 511 and 109 of Indian Penal Code.
13. In the above manner, all the accused, with an intention
to defame the complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1) in the Society,
creating false circumstances with the support of various
– 27 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
Associations, Societies and also with the financial support, have
given false information against the complainant through Women
Association, and through electronic and print media. Based on
‘B’ final reports of Investigating Officer, Report of Women’s
Grievance Redressal Committee, and affidavits-Exhibits P11 and
P12 filed by accused No.1 before the learned XI Additional
District & Sessions Court, Belagavi, prima facie, it appears that
accused have hatched conspiracy and filed complaints before
Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.286 of 2014, 19 of 2015
and 26 of 2015, through accused No.1 and defamed the
complainant and caused his illegal detention and thereby,
curtailed his right of freedom and hence, accused have
committed offences punishable under Sections 109, 192, 211,
195, 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code.
14. The Investigating Officer, has rightly filed ‘B’ final
report and as the accused No.1 has filed affidavits before the
District Court, Belagavi, seeking to withdraw Criminal Revision
Petitions. Thus, accused have committed offences punishable
under Sections 195, 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. But, the Investigating Officer
– 28 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
has not taken any action against them. On the basis of three
complaints filed by T.B. Majjagi-PW1, the Police Inspector of
Malmaruti Police Station, registered case in Crime No.44, 45 &
46 of 2017 against the accused for offences punishable under
Sections 195, 211, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and forwarded
First Information Report to the Court. Thereafter, Police
Inspector of Malmaruti Police Station visited the scene of
offence, prepared spot panchanama and recorded the further
statement of complainant-PW1 and the statements of
witnesses. He also seized the documents produced by the staff
and got permission of the Court to keep the said documents
with him. On 9th April 2017, he collected the sample signatures
of accused 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 13, 12 and 11 in the presence of
panchas and sent the same for analysis.
15. PW10-Investigating Officer, as per the order of
Honourable Supreme Court, wrote letter to the learned JMFC-II
Court, Belagavi seeking permission to continue investigation in
the said crimes and got permission accordingly. He recorded
the statement of complainant and issued two DVDs and a photo
album produced by him. He also recorded the statements of
witnesses. As the Investigating Officer, found prima facie
– 29 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
material against accused No.1, he filed charge-sheet against
accused No.1 for the alleged offences before the learned JMFC-
II Court, Belagavi, who registered Case in CC No.256 of 2019.
The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 26th July 2019,
committed the case to Sessions Court for trial under Section
209 of Code of Criminal Procedure. After committal of case to
the Sessions Court, case in SC No.262 of 2019 came to be
registered. Accused No.1 appeared before the Court and was
released on bail.
16. On 11th September, 2019, charges were framed against
accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 195,
211, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. Upon
application being filed by the complainant under Section 319 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial Court has passed an order
on 13th June 2020, to array respondents as accused 2 to 13 to
face trial along with accused No.1. On 14th November, 2022,
the trial Court framed additional charges against accused No.1
for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian
Penal Code, the same was read over and explained to the
accused in the language known to her. Accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. On the same day, charges were
– 30 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
framed against accused 2 to 13 for the offences punishable
under Sections 120B, 195, 211, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with
Section 149 of IPC. Further, on the same day, i.e. on 14th
November, 2022, the trial Court framed charges against
accused 2 to 13 for offences punishable under Section 120B of
IPC. The same were explained to the accused in the language
known to them. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
17. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution, in all,
examined thirteen witnesses as PWs1 to 13 and marked 81
documents as Exhibits P1 to P81. Upon closure of prosecution
side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of
Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused have denied
the evidence of prosecution witnesses appearing against them.
Except accused No.4, Written arguments of accused 1 to 3 and
5 to 13 have been filed. The defence have adduced evidence of
DW1 and produced documents as Exhibits D1 to D32. Accused
No.1 has filed written statement under Section 233(2) of Code
of Criminal Procedure.
– 31 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
18. Having heard arguments on both sides and after
considering the written arguments of accused 1 to 3, 10, 12,
13, 5, 7, 8, 6 and 9, the trial Court passed the Judgment of
conviction dated 25th June, 2024 against accused 1 to 13 for
commission of offence punishable under Section 120B, 195,
211, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal
Code. The trial Court passed sentence dated 27th June, 2024
ordering accused 1 to 13 to undergo simple imprisonment for 3
years 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 195 read with Section 149 of Indian
Penal Code and in default to pay fine, they shall undergo
further imprisonment for a period of three months. Further,
accused 1 to 13 were sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for 3 years 6 months and to pay fine of
Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 467 read
with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and in default to pay
fine, the shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of
three months. Further, accused 1 to 13 to undergo simple
imprisonment for 3 years 6 months and to pay fine of
Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 420 read
with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and in default to pay
– 32 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
fine, they shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of
three months. Accused 1 to 13 were further sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years 6 months and to pay
fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
468 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and in default
to pay fine, the shall undergo further imprisonment for a period
of two months; the accused 1 to 13 were further sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year 2 months and to pay
fine of Rs.6,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 471
read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code; in default to pay
fine, they shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of
one month; further the accused 1 to 13 were sentenced to pay
a fine of Rs.6,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
211 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and in default
to pay fine, they shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one
month; and accused 1 to 13 were further, sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs.4,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
120B read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and in default
to pay fine, shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one
month and the sentence and imprisonment shall run
concurrently.
– 33 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
19. Being aggrieved by this Judgment of conviction and
order on sentence, accused 1 to 13 have preferred Crl. Appeals
No.100354/2024, 100355/2024, 100356/2024, 100357/2024,
100358/2024, 100370/2024, and 100371/2024, challenging
the same; complainant has preferred Criminal Revision Petition
No.100305 of 2024 seeking enhancement of sentence as
prescribed under the statute; and the State has preferred
appeal No.100026 of 2025 for enhancement of sentence.
Submission on behalf of appellants/accused 2 & 4 to 12:
20. Sri Ashok R. Kalyanshetty, learned Counsel appearing
for the appellants/accused 2 & 4 to 12 in Criminal Appeals
100355, 100356, 100370 and 100371 of 2024 submitted that
the Judgment of Conviction and order on Sentence passed by
the learned Sessions Judge is opposed to law, procedure, facts,
and probabilities of the case. He would submit that the alleged
motive and intention of the accused to commit the alleged
offences has not been proved. As regards the allegation made
by the prosecution as to conspiracy under Section 120B of
Indian Penal Code is concerned, none of the witnesses or
documents would speak about the exact date, time and place of
conspiracy. Complainant-PW1, for the first time, has come up
– 34 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
with dates of conspiracy only during the course of evidence
before the Court and stated that on 02nd, 05th and 08th
November 2014, at about 6.00 pm, all the accused gathered in
the parking place of Office of HESCOM Urban Division at Nehru
Nagar, Belagavi. These dates neither appear in the complaint-
Exhibit P1 nor in the panchanama or in previous proceedings
alleged to be held before the departmental enquiry, report of
Women’s Grievance Redressal Committee, etc. Therefore, the
prosecution has failed to prove the allegations levelled against
the accused. He would submit that the PW1 and other
witnesses have admitted that the alleged place of conspiracy is
a public place, so also, all the accused were working in different
places and they never worked together with accused No.1 or
with PW1 at any point of time. Therefore, the allegation of
alleged conspiracy is only created one. It is further submitted
that some of the accused have appeared in the photographs
produced by the prosecution. Those photographs are collected
by PW1 himself and got prepared to suit to his allegations. It is
stated in the allegations that some of the accused have signed
Exhibit P19 to give harassment to PW1, but it is important to
note that neither prosecution nor PW1 have alleged that
– 35 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
accused 2 to 4, 7 to 9 and 11 to 13 are not the elected
members of KPTCL Employees Union or it was denied that they
are the Office Bearers of the said Union. It is the main
allegation of the complainant and the prosecution that accused
No.2 created false document Exhibit P19, mentioning himself as
a Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union, though he was not.
But, PW1 in his cross-examination, has admitted that accused
No.2 was Vice-President and DW1 has clearly stated in his
evidence that accused No.2 was appointed as Vice President, as
per Exhibit D32. Therefore, Exhibit D32 is contrary to the
letter-Exhibit P28 issued by PW13. This proves that the
accused No.2 was Vice President of the KPTCL Employees Union
at the relevant point of time. It is further submitted that there
is no intention or motive on behalf of the accused that, after
issuing the letter at Exhibit P19, PW1 was suspended and
transferred to some other place. On the contrary, it is
established by the defence that PW1 was suspended as per
Rules and Regulations, as PW1 was remanded to judicial
custody for more than 48 hours. Exhibit P19 is ignored by
higher officials and same is not considered at any point of time.
– 36 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
Therefore, the allegations of cheating, fabrication of documents
are not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
21. The other allegation of the prosecution that Affidavits-
Exhibits P11 & P12 filed by accused No.1 before the XI
Additional District & Sessions Court at Belagavi, wherein for the
first time, the name of accused 2 to 10 appeared and on the
basis of said affidavits, PW1 filed complaint before Malmaruti
Police which was registered in Crime No.44 of 2017 for the
above said offences is concerned, till that date, the complainant
never made any attempt to file a case against any of the
accused including accused No.1. Though ‘B’ final reports have
been submitted long back by Malmaruti Police in all the three
cases filed by accused No.1, the Report given by Women
Grievance Redressal Committee stating that there is no water in
the complaint made by accused No.1, so also, the reports of his
higher officers stating that the incident, as alleged in the
complaint by accused No.1 as false, the complainant-T.B.
Majjagi never took any action against any of the accused till
filing alleged affidavits Exhibits P11 & P12 before the XI Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi. Therefore, the prosecution
has not proved the inordinate delay in filing the complaint by
– 37 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
Complainant-PW1, which is beyond a period of two and a half
years. It only shows the intention of complainant-PW1 that by
taking time to create documents, he has filed complaint against
the accused.
22. Initially, accused 2 to 9 have been exonerated and
discharged from the charges levelled against them as per the
order of this Court in Criminal Petition No.100261 of 2017 dated
16th February 2018, as also, as per the orders of Retired District
Judge Sri J.S. Somashekhar, in his report dated 04th January
2018. Later the Department, again, exonerated these accused
after conducting de-nova trial as per order dated 07th June
2024. Therefore, in the said proceedings before the High Court
as well as before the departmental enquiry, considering the
allegations, evidence and documents produced before this
Court, so also considering those documents, the High Court
quashed all three First Information Reports filed by PW1 and
also the private complaint filed by PW1 for defamation against
accused 2 to 10 and the Presiding Officer was pleased to
exonerate accused 2 to 10 from the allegations. He submits
that in the remarkable Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of
Orissa in the case of DR. MINAKETAN PANI v. STATE OF
– 38 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
ORISSA rendered in Criminal M.C.No.3407 of 2010 decided on
20th May 2022, it is held that if the facts and circumstances of
the departmental enquiry and the facts and circumstances
before the trial Court are one and the same, and if the accused
is exonerated in the Departmental Enquiry, then the trial Court
can also accept the enquiry report and exonerate the accused in
the proceedings before it. In the said Judgment, the Hon’ble
High Court of Orissa was pleased to consider the Judgments
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that regard.
23. It is further submitted that the prosecution failed to
prove that allegations made to attract the offences punishable
under Sections 195 & 211 of IPC, wherein no action was taken
against the alleged affidavits filed by accused No.1 or enquiry
conducted against any of the accused, as contemplated under
Sections 340 & 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure and also
before the Magistrate Court, wherein ‘B’ reports have been filed
in all the complaints lodged by accused No.1 and there also no
orders have been passed for the offences punishable under
Sections 195 & 211 of IPC as per the provisions of Section 340
or 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigation agency
has no right to investigate the matter under those offences
– 39 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
without prior permission of the Court. In this regard, he relies
on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
KAMALAPATI TRIVEDI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in
(1980)2 SCC 91 and the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High
Court in the case of RAJKUMAR MALAPANI v. AKELLA
SHRINIVAS RAO reported in 2011 Crl.L.J. 2997.
24. Learned Counsel would further submit that the
documents collected by PW1 which were handed over to the
investigating agency, have not been compared by the
investigating agency and the investigating agency had not at all
conducted any investigation in support of their allegations,
except relying upon the documents submitted by PW1. It is
further submitted that none of the electronic documents or the
Media report submitted by PW1 before the investigating agency
or before this Court, have been supported by any certificate as
contemplated under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ARJUN
PANDITRAO KHOTKAR v. KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL
reported in AIR 2020 SC 4908. PW1 has also not produced any
certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act to show
as to who had taken the photographs from Exhibit P2 or from
– 40 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
the compact disc given by PW11. Further, PW11 also has not
given any certificate in respect of he downloading the news
appeared in Electronic Media, before the trial Court and also
before the enquiry conducted by the Women’s Grievance
Redressal Committee or before the departmental enquiry. The
prosecution has not submitted any certificate under Section 65B
of Indian Evidence Act, wherein the prosecution relied on the
photographs, clips/images from compact disc, call details,
Google map, WhatsApp chat, etc. which are compulsory and
mandatory. The trial Court cannot go through those documents
without valid certificate, under Section 65B of Indian Evidence
Act. Therefore, he would submit that the documents produced
by PW1 do not help the prosecution to prove all the offences
alleged against accused and on this point alone accused are
entitled for acquittal, is his submission.
25. He would further submit that the basic principles of
criminal jurisprudence are: (1) accused are always innocent,
(2) the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt and (3) while proving the case, if serious doubts and
circumstances arise before the trial Court and if two views are
possible, then the benefit of doubt and the view in favour of the
– 41 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
accused is to be given to the accused. With regard to affidavits
Exhibits P11 and P12 filed by the accused No.1 before the XI
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, the learned
Counsel would submit that, Article 20(3) of Constitution of India
clearly states that, no person accused of any offence shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself/herself. Therefore,
the alleged affidavits Exhibits P11 and P12 cannot be construed
against the accused in the trial Court. He would submit that
the defence tried their level best before the trial Court to show
that the said affidavits were created only with an intention to
file a case against the accused 2 to 13. The trial Court during
the trial, posed question to PW1 and PW3 under Section 165 of
Indian Evidence Act, as to whether the accused persons
harassed PW1, and to the said question, PW3 admitted that
accused have never harassed PW1. Under Section 165 of
Indian Evidence Act, there is discretionary power to the trial
Court and to the judges to pose questions in order to discover
proper proof of relevant facts, and to ask any question, as it
pleases, in any form, at any time, or to any of the witnesses or
any of the parties. Therefore, the answer given by PW3 would
go to establish that accused 2 to 13 are innocent, and they
– 42 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
neither hatched any conspiracy nor harassed, created any
document, given any false evidence or have participated in any
crime. He submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has
committed error in overlooking the major discrepancies
occurred in the evidence of witnesses, which disprove the
prosecution case. Therefore, he submits that the trial Court has
not appreciated the documents, facts and evidence in its proper
perspective and has erred in convicting the accused. On all
these grounds he sought to allow Criminal Appeals No.100355,
100356, 100370 & 100371 of 2024 filed on behalf of the
accused 2 & 4 to 12. To buttress his submission, he has also
relied on the judgment in the case of SANTOKH SINGH v.
IZHAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER reported in case of 1973(2)
SCC 406.
Submission on behalf of appellant/Accused No.3:
26. Sri Jagdish Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant/accused No.3 in Criminal Appeal No.100354 of 2024,
would submit that pursuant to complaint made by accused No.1
against the complainant, an internal Inquiry Committee was
constituted in which the officials took note of the statements of
– 43 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
the complainant as well as accused No.1. He would submit that
though the complainant-T.B. Majjagi (PW1) had alleged that
accused No.1 had lodged a bogus complaint against him, yet, at
no point of time prior to this, the complainant has named the
present accused. The complainant has admitted in the cross-
examination that even during the enquiry, he has not stated
anything about the other accused, including this accused having
instigated or aided for lodging of bogus complaint by accused
No.1. It is only based on the affidavits filed by the accused
No.1 that the involvement of other accused is being alleged.
Accused No.1 has also lodged a complaint way back in the year
2012 which is registered in SC No.70 of 2012. He would further
submit that though the incident is of the year 2014, the
complaint was lodged only in the year 2017 and the inordinate
delay in filing the complaint is not explained either in the First
Information Report or during the evidence. He would submit
that the trial Court has not considered this aspect and further
submit that trial Court should have dismissed the case on the
ground of delay alone. The trial Court has not considered the
fact that PW1 had sexually harassed accused No.1 and in
collusion with police officers, managed to get filed ‘B’ final
– 44 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
reports concerning the said incidents and further, due to the
mental harassment meted out by PW1, so also, complainant
inducing accused No.1 to sign affidavits Exhibits P11 & P12,
making allegations of involvement of other accused including
the present accused, accused No.1 had tried to commit suicide.
The contents of affidavits Exhibits P11 & P12 filed by accused
No.1, could not have been treated either as confession or as
material conclusion concerning the involvement of the present
appellant but only as affidavits, and the same could not have
been relied upon by the trial Court to conclude the involvement
of the present appellant in the incident concerning the
involvement of the complainant. The affidavits filed by accused
No.1 do not comply with the provisions of Karnataka Criminal
Rules of Practice 1968, more specifically, provisions found in
Rule (1) of Chapter XVI. Since provisions of Criminal Rules of
Practice having not been followed, Affidavits filed by accused
No.1, could not have been relied upon by the trial Court.
27. He would further submit that the trial Court relied on
the evidence of witnesses, including the evidence of
complainant, wherein complainant also has not deposed
anything about the place, time and date on which the alleged
– 45 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
conspiracy took place. The evidence of said witnesses is only a
hearsay evidence and could not be treated as a direct evidence
and as such, there is no weight in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses against the appellant/accused.
28. His further submission is that the name of the
appellant/accused is not reflected in the charge sheet and only
upon the application filed by the complainant under Section 319
of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking arraying the complainant
as accused, he was arrayed as an accused in the instant case
and there is no credible material to even file a charge sheet
against the present accused. The entire case of prosecution is
based on contradictory and circumstantial evidence and hence,
he prays for acquittal of the appellant/accused.
Submission on behalf of appellant/accused No.1:
29. Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant/accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.100357 of
2024, would submit that the entire case of prosecution revolves
around the alleged statement/affidavits Exhibits P11 & P12
alleged to have been sworn in by appellant/accused No.1.
There are several legal infirmities in affidavits Exhibits P11 &
– 46 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
P12. These Exhibits cannot be construed as affidavits at all as
per Chapter XVI Rule (1) of Karnataka Criminal Rules of
Practice, 1968, as the affidavits filed by accused no.1, do not
contain cause-title. Admittedly, the person who has identified
the appellant is not the counsel on record. Even the suit in OS
No.1/2023 (Exhibit D23) is pending consideration before
competent Civil Court, so also, complaint in CC No.68 of 2022
(Exhibit D22) is also pending consideration before the
competent Criminal Court. Admittedly, while
withdrawing/dismissing the Criminal Revision Petitions, no order
is passed on alleged affidavits nor they are taken into
consideration. The Criminal Revision Petitions preferred by the
appellant/accused No.1 are also not dismissed on merits and if
really, the respondent therein i.e. complainant herein, was
really innocent, he ought to have resisted withdrawal of
Revision Petitions and contested the matter on merits as well as
prosecuted the appellant/accused No.1 for having given false
evidence. The contents of Affidavits Exhibits P11 & P12 have
not been proved by confronting the same to the appellant
herein and none of the Investigating Officers have recorded the
statement/confession of the appellant. Mere marking of
– 47 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
documents, by itself, would not prove the contents of the same.
In fact, if the affidavits are read in its entirety, no offence can
be made out as against the appellant/accused No.1, as it would
clearly demonstrate that no intention was forthcoming on the
part of the appellant herein. The overall mitigating factors
would clearly reveal that, in fact, the appellant herein has been
utilised as a tool to settle the score of the complainant-PW1.
The Investigating Officer ought to have conducted the
investigation in a way so as to ascertain the truthfulness of the
allegations made in the affidavits or at least recorded the
statement of the appellant/accused No.1. The document at
Exhibit D1 which is the complaint filed by Smt. Renuka
Shashikant Appugol in Crime No.209 of 2010 and Exhibit D7 the
complaint filed by Suresh Kallappa Kamble/Accused No.10 in
Crime No.193/2010, itself speak in volumes about the activities
of PW1-complainant. The trial Court has failed to consider the
explanation offered by the appellant under Section 313 Code of
Criminal Procedure and also not considered the statement of
appellant made under Section 233(2) Code of Criminal
Procedure, wherein the appellant has clearly stated as to under
what circumstance, affidavits Exhibits P11 & P12 were
– 48 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
prepared. Absolutely, there is no independent evidence or eye-
witness to show the gathering of accused near the parking
place of Office of HESCOM Urban Division at Nehru Nagar,
Belagavi. There is no cogent evidence established by the
prosecution that on 02nd, 05th and 08th November 2014, at
about 6.00 pm the accused No.1 and other accused joined
together, conspired and created the letter dated 05th December,
2014 in the name of KPTCL Employees Union. The said letter
does not bear the signature accused No.1, so also, it is not the
allegation of the prosecution that accused No.1 has submitted
representations at Exhibits P14 & P19 to the Superintending
Engineer or any other Officer. It is further submitted that the
place of conspiracy alleged by the complainant, is an open
space as can be gathered from the cross-examination dated
29th December, 2023 (on page No.61 at paragraph No.109) and
also from the evidence of PW7 in his cross-examination dated
28th February, 2024 at page No.2 paragraph that, “£Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ
ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄ£Àß ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ §¢UÉ PÀgÉzÁUÀ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÉÝ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
»ÃUÁV ªÀiÁ¼ÀªÀiÁgÀÄw ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ vÀÄA¨Á ZÉ£ÁßVvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ
ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §¤ß JAzÀÄ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà °TvÀ £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ ¤Ãr®è.”. It is
also not forthcoming whether there was any altercation by
– 49 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
accused No.1 with the complainant soon before the incident
becoming subject matter of Crime No.286 of 2014. There is an
evidence to establish that the incident truly happened on 13th
November 2014, where the complainant PW6-Mr.Vinod Karur,
Mr. M.T. Thakkalaki and Mr. Maruti S. Dodamani are involved in
the incident. Learned Counsel would submit that copy of report
of Women Grievance Redressal Committee is inclusive of part of
documents marked as Exhibit P15, which the Court may
consider. Further, he would submit that accused No.1, through
her letter to the very authority, stated that “as per statement of
Sri Karur, Assistant Executive Engineer (E1), during the
enquiry, he has called from his mobile number 9448370242 to
9448370243 at 12:38 pm, and in the call statement submitted
by them, the details of calls between those numbers are not
found. Hence, he visited the BSNL office, where he was told
that the call details are supplied in the prescribed format only
(html). But, the call details is in the excel sheet, must have
been manipulated.” Like this, many lacunae are identified.
The above facts, clearly show that complainant-T.B. Majjagi has
submitted false documents and created the story to misguide
the Enquiry Committee. The accused No.1, further submitted
– 50 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
as to three attachments to her e-mail dated 22nd May 2020
addressed to Enquiry Officer, wherein the first attachment
reads as “since the call record details obtained by the
Committee was manipulated one as they are provided in the
Excel sheet, the calls connected between PW6, accused No.1
and PW1 are not reflecting in the records. As such, the said
report at Exhibit P15 is not fair and the same is biased.” T.B.
Majjagi-PW1 in his cross-examination on 16th January, 2020
has deposed that, “I have not given any complaint to my senior
authorities stating that accused No.1 was doing illegal works. It
is true to suggest that myself and B.V. Sindhu were working in
the department together.” On perusal of these admissions, it
appears that there was no animosity between the complainant
and accused No.1, either in connection with the service or
otherwise prior to incident dated 13th November 2014. As such,
there should not be any motive for accused No.1 to make false
allegations against the complainant unnecessarily.
30. Further, learned counsel would submit that the
evidence of PW1 shows that he has deposed that, “it is true to
suggest that in spite of complaint by B.V. Sindhu, I was
promoted as Superintending Engineer, I was given timely
– 51 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
increments and my pension was not stopped.” This only shows
the high-handedness of PW1 in the Department. The WhatsApp
messages exchanged between accused No.1 and Mr. Shivaram
Revankar (who subsequently married each other), disclose that
on 13th November 2014, PW1 narrated the happenings and
circumstances prior to entering the premises wherein the
complainant-PW1 called her through PW6 and the further
incident of sexual harassment as per the subject matter of
Crime No.286 of 2014. This goes to show that the statement
made in the contents of Crime No.286 of 2014 are true and that
PW1 asked PW6 to call accused No.1 on 13th November, 2014
at about 1.00 pm to go to Stores, where M.T. Thakkalaki and
Maruti S. Dodamani directed accused No.1 to go to Engineers
Association Building and when the accused No.1 went there, the
complainant-PW1 asked her to switch off her mobile phone and
outraged her modesty and committed sexual harassment on
her. It also contains the statement given by the accused
No.13-Drakshayini M. Nesargi before the Enquiry Committee
that she met accused No.1 near the Stores and enquired her as
to where she was going at that time? A perusal of Exhibit D12
and D6, reveals that the complainant was booked by Malmaruti
– 52 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
Police Station in Crime No.209 of 2010, which complaint lodged
by one Mrs. Renuka Shashikant Appugol, relating to sexual
harassment. The prosecution documents themselves speak
about the publications of stories of complainant-PW1 with
regard to his act of sexual harassment. In this case also ‘B’
report came to be submitted by Police. Exhibit D7 speaks that
PW1 was booked by Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.193
of 2010 upon the complaint lodged by accused No.10 for
offences punishable and Section 323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal
Code and offences under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act,
1989. In the said case also, ‘B’ report came to be submitted by
the Police.
31. Exhibit D12 speaks that one P. Madhusudana had
lodged complaint against PW1 and others for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 307 and 506 of
Indian Penal Code, before Malmaruti Police Station which is
registered as Crime No.213 of 2011, which also ended in filing
of ‘B’ report. The counter case got registered in the said Police
Station in Crime No.214 of 2011 filed by T.B. Majjagi-PW1
against said Madhusudana also ended in filing ‘B’ report. These
circumstances show that the complainant is always in habit of
– 53 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
involving in miscreant activities and in the activities of sexual
harassment. Further, these documents also show high-
handedness of complainant-PW1 in getting all the cases closed
by getting filed ‘B’ reports, even in his own complaint filed
before the said Police Station in Crime No.214 of 2011. The
Police, surprisingly, filed ‘B’ report in the case and counter case
where the incident is admitted by both the parties. The three
cases filed by accused No.1 in Crime No.286 of 2014, 19 of
2015 and 26 of 2015, also ended up in filing ‘B’ reports in the
same line as in earlier incidents, though there were serious
allegations of sexual harassment against the complainant-PW1.
Moreover, the documents produced by the prosecution and
defence themselves goes to show that the antecedents of
complainant are always involved with criminal cases, sexual
harassment, and corruption. Learned Counsel would submit
that neither the Revision Court nor the trial Court have held any
enquiry against accused No.1 for initiating action against her
for the offences punishable under Sections 195 & 211 of
IPC or any similar offences of the said Chapter of Indian Penal
Code for fabricating false evidence and for filing false
complaints to procure the conviction of PW1, when such
– 54 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
affidavits came on record of the cases. Even the Investigating
Officer of that case took no action for proceeding against
accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 195 &
211 of IPC.
32. The learned Counsel would submit that absolutely no
material elements are made out by the prosecution for filing
false complaints against the complainant by accused No.1.
Further, the intention of accused No.1 for filing such affidavits
before the Court is also not established by the Court. Neither of
the Investigating Officers of three cases wherein ‘B’ reports
have been filed, have taken any steps to proceed against
accused No.1 for filing of false cases. The said documents
never took the characteristic of affidavit within the meaning of
Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice. The complainant wanted
to book accused 2 to 13 for his vengeance act and for the
reasons best known to him and to make the accused No.1 a
scapegoat, so also, to take revenge against her since he was
remanded to judicial custody in Crime No.26 of 2015 for the
offences punishable under Sections 306, 511 and 109 of Indian
Penal Code, and also for being suspended from service. The
statement of accused No.1 was recorded before Magistrate
– 55 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime
No.286 of 2014. The complainant did not file any counter-
affidavit to the same. In spite of this, Police filed ‘B’ report in
the said case. Hence, he submits that looking at any angle, it is
not appearing or established that accused No.1 has fabricated
false evidence, forged documents and filed false cases against
the complainant-T.B. Majjagi to procure his conviction that too
conspiring with other accused. Absolutely, there are no
evidences to hold accused No.1 guilty of charges under Section
195, 211, 420, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.
Accused No.1 has never created any documents by way of forgery
or used the same either otherwise or as genuine. No offence is
made out against accused No.1 under Section 420 of Indian Penal
Code and sought to acquit accused No.1 of alleged offences.
33. His further submission is that the accused No.1 had
alleged that M.T. Thakkalaki was produced before JMFC-II
Court, Belagavi in Crime No.286 of 2014 based on true facts.
Learned Magistrate has also recorded the statement of accused
No.1, under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The
police, without investigating into the matter, have filed ‘B’
report. Further, he would submit that during February 2016,
– 56 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
accused No.1 had been posted to Gulbarga. In March 2016, her
husband Shivaram Revankar, who was working as Junior
Engineer, was suspended on false allegations. During May
2016, she was pregnant and was suffering due to severe hot at
Gulbarga and at that time, T.B. Majjige-complainant has asked
her to withdraw Criminal Revision Petitions, promising her of
getting revoked the suspension of her husband and also to
arrange for her transfer from Gulbarga to a place nearer to her
native place. The said affidavits are prepared at the instance of
the complainant and she was made to present those affidavits
in Criminal Revision Petitions personally without representation
of her Advocate, that too, taking the case on Board in advance
without any reason. Accused No.1, never intended to file such
affidavits before the Revision Court, willingly. The Advocate
who had identified accused No.1 in the said affidavits was also
not known to her and she was never acquainted with him. In
this regard, accused No.1 filed statement under Section 233(2)
of Code of Criminal Procedure. Documents pertaining to
revocation of suspension of Shivaram Revankar by HESCOM
Authority and his reinstatement to duty on 2nd February 2017
and the discharge summary pertaining to the accused No.1-
– 57 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
B.V.Sindhu are also produced. He would further submit that in
view of Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act, the confession made
by the accused No.1, under inducement, are not admissible in
evidence. Learned Counsel would submit that the trial Court
has not properly appreciated the evidence and record in
accordance with law and facts, and on all these grounds sought
to allow the appeal.
34. To substantiate his arguments, he has relied on the
following decisions.:
i. BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND
ANOTHER v. PRASAD VASSUDEV KENI AND
OTHERS [ (2020) 20 SCC 1]ii. IN RE AHAMAD [1950 SCC ONLINE KAR 16]
Submission on behalf of appellant/accused No.13:
35. Sri B.V. Somapur, learned counsel appearing for
appellant/accused No.13 in Criminal Appeal No.100358 of 2024
submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order
on sentence is illegal, improper, arbitrary, capricious and
perverse and the same is not maintainable either in law or on
facts of the case and therefore, the same is liable to be set
aside. He submits that absolutely there are no evidence
– 58 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
against the accused that attract the alleged commission of
offence. There is no single/word or allegation against this
appellant/accused No.13 regarding commission of alleged
offences by her except the say that the letter dated 05th
December, 2024 given to the higher authorities making
allegations against complainant-T.B. Majjagi is signed by the
present appellant which is denied by the appellant. Mere
signature on a document cannot be said that the person who
has signed on such document was having knowledge of the
contents of the document and had intentionally signed the said
document. He submitted that the trial Court ought to have
taken note of this fact and should have held that the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused No.13 and
should have acquitted her. On all these grounds, he sought to
allow the appeal and acquit the accused.
Submissions on behalf of the State:
36. Sri M.B. Gundwade, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court has properly
appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and
facts and absolutely there are no materials to interfere with the
impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence and
– 59 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
sought for dismissal of appeals filed by the appellants/accused.
He would further submit that the trial Court has imposed the
sentence of imprisonment for only three years and six months
for the offence punishable under Sections 195, 467 and 420
read with 149 of Indian Penal Code with payment of
Rs.20,000/- each; for two years six months for offence
punishable under Section 468 read with Section 149 of Indian
Penal Code and fine of Rs.10,000/- each; for one year two
months with fine of Rs.6,000/- each for the offence punishable
under Section 471 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code;
and payment of fine of Rs.6,000/- for offence punishable under
Section 211 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and fine of
Rs.4,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 120B read
with 149 of Indian Penal Code, which is very meagre. The
accused have committed heinous offence. The trial Court ought
to have imposed maximum punishment. On all these grounds
he sought for allowing the appeal preferred by State, and to
dismiss the appeals preferred by the appellants/accused.
Submission on behalf of complainant-Revision Petitioner:
37. Sri Zaheerabbas M. Hattarki, learned counsel appearing
for the Revision Petitioner in Crl.R.P. No.100305 of 2024 has
– 60 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
filed the Revision Petition under Sections 397 read with Section
401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the impugned
judgment of conviction and order on sentence. Learned
Counsel would submit that the punishment imposed by the trial
Court on respondents 2 to 13 for offence punishable under
Section 195 Indian Penal Code is very meager. He submits that
the prescribed punishment under Section 195 of Indian Penal
Code is imprisonment for life, but the trial Court has imposed
imprisonment for a period of three years, six months with fine,
which is against the procedure and settled legal principle. As
the trial Court considered the evidence adduced by the
prosecution, and in view of the gravity of offence, the trial
Court ought to have given maximum punishment to
respondents 2 to 13 and hence he seeks interference of this
Court. He further submits that for the offence punishable under
Section, 211 read with 149 of IPC is concerned, the trial Court
has sentenced respondents 2 to 13 to pay a fine of Rs.6,000/-
each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month, whereas the punishment
prescribed under said Section as applicable in Para II is
punishable with imprisonment for seven years and with fine,
– 61 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
whereas the trial Court has grossly erred in imposing the
quantum of punishment only with a fine of Rs.6,000/-, in
default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for one
month and the same is liable to be interfered with by this
Court. As regards punishment under Section 420 of Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the
punishment under said Section is imprisonment for seven years
with fine, but the trial Court has convicted the accused to
undergo simple imprisonment for three years six months and to
pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each, which is very meagre and hence
the punishment imposed by the trial Court under this Section is
also liable to be interfered with by this Court. As regards,
punishment under Section 467 read with 149 of Indian Penal
Code is concerned, the statute prescribes punishment that may
extend up to ten years, whereas the trial Court has taken too
lenient view and imposed imprisonment of three years six
months with fine of Rs.6,000/- each, which also is against the
principles of sentencing rules and quantum of punishment
against the statute. With respect to punishment under Section
468 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code is concerned,
the trial Court has imposed a punishment of two years six
– 62 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
months with fine of Rs.10,000/- each as against punishment,
which may extend to 7 years with fine and hence the learned
Counsel seeks enhancement of punishment under the said
Section also. With respect to imposing punishment of criminal
conspiracy under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code is
concerned, the learned Counsel submits that the statute
prescribe rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or
upwards where no express provision is made in this Code for
the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same
manner as if the accused had abetted such offence. Further in
Para II, the punishment prescribed is for a term exceeding six
months or fine or both. But the trial Court has imposed
payment of fine of Rs.4,000/-, which is far below the
punishment prescribed under the statute. Hence, learned
Counsel sought for enhancement of punishment as prescribed
under statute.
38. The learned Counsel submit that the trial Court has
considered the evidence and gone through the documents
produced by the prosecution, which shows that the complainant
who was a senior-most officer, has worked with great integrity
and served the organisation for more than 34 years. He has
– 63 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
been honoured by State and Central Governments and various
organisations. As the complainant was strict and very punctual
in his duties, respondent 2 to 13, to tarnish his image,
committed the above offences which have been proved by the
prosecution. Hence, he submits that the trial Court erred in not
sentencing the accused in deserving manner as prescribed
under the statute.
39. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel that
several false cases are being filed against the complainant by
respondents 2 to 13 in different Courts including High Court and
the Supreme Court. The respondent No.2/accused No.1 has
gone to the extent of filing several cases and further she has
admitted herself in her affidavits that the allegations made are
false. That itself shows the quantum of mental agony and the
hardship given by the accused to the complainant. Hence, he
prays for imposing punishment to respondents 2 to 13 for
commission of abovesaid offences as prescribed under the
Statute. On all these grounds, he prays for allowing the
revision petition by enhancing the punishment.
– 64 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
40. Having heard the arguments on both sides and perusal
of materials placed before us, the following points would arise
for our consideration:
1. Whether the impugned judgment of conviction
and order on sentence passed by the trial Court
suffers from legal infirmities requiring this Court
to intercede?
2. Whether the State has made out a ground for
enhancement of sentence passed against accused
2 to 14?
3. Whether the revision petitioner/complainant has
made out a ground for enhancement of
punishment in respect of respondents 2 to 14?
4. What order?
41. Our answer to the above points would be as under:
Point No.1: in the affirmative
Points 2 & 3: in the negative
Point No.4: as per final order
42. We have carefully examined the materials place before
us. The genesis of the case arises out of the complaint filed by
PW1-T.B. Majjagi, Superintending Engineer as per Exhibit P1.
– 65 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
On the basis of the complaint, case came to be registered in
Crime No.44 of 2017 on 12th February, 2017 and First
Information Report was submitted to the Court as per Exhibit
P71 against accused 1 to 10 for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 195, 211, 34, 420, 465, 120B, 468,
192, 471 and 467 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the
Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against accused
Smt. B.V. Sindhu for commission of offences under Section 195,
211, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and the
names of Nataji P Patil, Ajit M Pujeri, Mallasarja S Shahapurkar,
Subhash M, Irappa M, Mallikarjuna S, Bhimappa L, Rajendra B,
Suresha K, whose names find place in First Information Report
as accused 1 to 9, were dropped from the charge-sheet.
43. After filing of charge-sheet, the jurisdictional Magistrate
took cognizance against accused-B.V. Sindhu for the aforesaid
commission of offences and case was registered in CC number
256 of 2019 and after its committal to the sessions Court, case
in SC No.262 of 2019 came to be registered only against
accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu. Accused No.1 appeared before the
Court and was enlarged on bail. Charges against accused No.1
were framed for commission of offences punishable under
– 66 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
Sections 185, 211, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal
Code.
44. To prove the guilt of the accused No.1, prosecution has
examined PW1 on 25th October, 2019 and then case was posted
to 05th November 2019. On that day, the examination-in-chief
of complainant-PW1 was fully recorded and the case was posted
for cross-examination of PW1 on 12th November, 2019. On that
day, the Counsel for the accused filed application under Section
231 of Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to defer the
cross-examination of PW1 till the examination of CW6 & CW7.
The same was allowed and cross-examination of PW1 was
deferred till examination of CW6 & CW7.
45. The examination-in-chief of CW6 was recorded as PW2
and was bound over to appear on next date of hearing i.e. on
20th November 2019. On the same day, i.e. on 12th November
2019, learned Public Prosecutor filed an application under
Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure to implead the
persons mentioned in the application, as accused. After filing
the said application, the trial Court has issued notice to the
persons mentioned in the application. The proposed accused
– 67 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
appeared before the trial Court through their Counsel. Upon
hearing, the trial Court allowed the application filed under
Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure on 9th January 2020.
The said order was questioned before this Court in Writ Petition
No.147718 of 2020 connected with Criminal Revision Petition
No.100153 of 2020. This Court, by order dated 23rd December
2021, dismissed both the Writ Petition and Criminal Revision
Petition. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the same, Special
Leave Petitions in No.909 of 2022 and 454 of 2023 were
preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same
came to be dismissed by order dated to 02nd May 2022 and 09th
January, 2023, respectively. Thereafter, the trial Court framed
additional charge against accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu for
commission of offence punishable under Section 120B of Indian
Penal Code, on 14th November 2022. Charges were also framed
against accused 2 to 13 for commission of offence punishable
under Sections 120B, 195, 211, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with
149 of Indian Penal Code. The same were read over and
explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
– 68 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
46. To prove the case of accused, prosecution, in all,
examined thirteen witnesses as PWs1 to 13 and got marked 81
documents as Exhibits P1 to P81.
47. PW1-T.B. Majjagi, has deposed in his evidence that
from 2001 to 3rd February 2022, he worked as Assistant
Executive Engineer and as Executive Engineer at HESCOM,
Belagavi. The accused No.1, along with other accused,
conspired and lodged false complaint against him and two
others in Malmaruti Police Station on 19th November, 2014 in
Crime No.286 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections
354A, 341, 504, 506, read with Section 34 of IPC. In this
regard, Police filed ‘B’ report. The said report was accepted by
the learned JMFC-II, Belagavi. Accused No.1 filed Revision
Petition No.55 of 2016 before XI Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Belagavi challenging the acceptance of ‘B’ report. In the
said Revision Petition, accused file affidavit stating that the
other nine accused instigated her to filed false complaint against
him, hence she filed the complaint before Malmaruti Police
Station as per Exhibit P1. When he was working as Assistant
Executive Engineer and as an Executive Engineer in Belagavi,
the accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu was working as Assistant
– 69 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
Engineer (Technical) in Rural Sub-Division of HESCOM,
Belagavi. At that time, other officials by name, Sriyuths Nataji
P Patil, Lineman, Ajit M. Pujari, Assistant Executive Engineer,
Mallasarja S. Shahapurkar, Lineman, Subhash M. Hullolli, Junior
Engineer, Veerappa M Pathar and Mallikarjun S. Radihal,
Overseers; B.L. Godalakundaragi, Assistant, Sri Rajendra
Bhupal Haliangali, Lineman, Suresh Kamble, Accounts Officer;
Irayya G. Hiremath and Maruti B. Patil, Linemen; and Smt.
Drakshayini M. Nesaragi, Assistant, were working under him in
HESCOM, Belagavi. Accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu was member of
KEBEA and all others were members of KPTCL Employees
Union. All of them were jealous about his honesty. All the
accused colluded and filed false accusations against him and
defamed him by making efforts to place him under suspension
and to transfer him out of Belagavi, which came to his
knowledge too. He has further deposed that on 02nd, 05th and
08th November, 2014 at about 6.00 pm, all the accused
gathered in the parking place of HESCOM Urban Division Office
at Nehru Nagar, Belagavi and filed false complaint against him
and two others to the Managing Director, HESCOM, Hubli. The
accused No.1 has made accusations against him, stating that
– 70 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
he mentally harassed her. On 13th November 2014, all the
accused conspired and created false documents, false
circumstances and lodged complaint against him and two others
to the Chief Minister, Home Minister, Power Minister, Deputy
Commissioner, Human Rights Commission, State Women
Commission, etc. and further filed false complaint against him
and two others to all the higher officers of department. Again
on 19th November, 2014, accused No.1, with the instigation of
other accused, filed false complaint against him before
Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.286 of 2014. On 22nd
January 2015, another complaint was filed against him before
Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.19 of 2015. On 29th
January 2015, accused pretended to have consumed Meftal
forte and spass tablets (expired/date barred) and tried to
commit suicide. Accused No.1 was admitted to hospital with
the help of Nataji P. Patil, Mallasarja Shahpurkar and Subhash
Hullolli. In this regard, a complaint was lodged against her in
Crime No.25 of 2015 for suicide attempt. On 03rd February
2015, again accused No.1, with the instigation of other
accused, lodged false complaint against him before Malmaruti
Police Station in Crime No.26 of 2015 under Section 306 and
– 71 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
511 of IPC. On 19th November, 2014, he was again arrested in
Crime No.286 of 2014 and remanded to judicial custody and he
was in custody from 19th to 24th November, 2014. On 03rd
February 2015, Malmaruti Police arrested him and produced
before the jurisdictional Magistrate and he was remanded to
judicial custody and therefore, he was in custody from 03rd to
11th February 2015. Resultantly, he was suspended from service
as he was in judicial custody for more than 48 hours. The
above news was widely published in Print and Electronic media,
which act of the accused made complainant humiliated and
defamed in front of his family members, relatives, friends, and
general public.
48. He has stated that throughout his service, he had
served the department with honesty and integrity from the
cadre of Assistant Engineer to Superintendent Engineer and in
the entire career of 34 years, there was no black mark. All the
higher officers and the Power Department of Karnataka and
Government of India has honoured him. The award booklet
which is marked as Exhibit P2 contains 105 pages. The accused
No.1, along with other accused, conspired each other and filed
false complaint because he was not co-operating with their
– 72 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
illegal acts. The accused No.1 has also given complaint to
Managing Director, HESCOM, Hubli stating that he had
physically and mentally harassed her. All the three cases filed
by the accused No.1 were investigated by respective
investigating officers and it was found that the complaints are
false and baseless and in this regard ‘B’ reports came to be
filed. The copy of First Information Report and ‘B’ report in
Crime No.286 of 2014 is marked as Exhibits P3 & P4. The copy
of First Information Report and ‘B’ report in Crime No.19 of
2015 are marked as Exhibits P5 & P6 and the copy of First
Information Report and ‘B’ report in Crime No.26 of 2015 are
marked as Exhibits P7 & P8. The copies and photographs
appeared in electronics and print media are marked as Exhibits
P9 & P10. The complainant has further deposed that accused-
B.V. Sindhu filed Criminal Revision Petition No.55 of 2016
before XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi
challenging the ‘B’ report filed by the Police before Malmaruti
Police Station in Crime No.286 of 2014. Before the XI Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, the accused No.1 filed
affidavit stating that no such incident had taken place and at
the instigation of other accused, she has lodged the complaint.
– 73 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
She has also filed another Criminal Revision Petition in No.54 of
2016 with regard to Crime No.19 of 2015. In the said Revision
Petition also, she has filed affidavit stating that she has lodged
false complaint at the instigation of other accused. The
affidavits and order sheets of Criminal Revision Petitions No.54
and 55 of 2016 are marked as Exhibits P11 & P12. Eventually,
the District Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petitions on
the basis of affidavits filed by accused No.1.
49. On 5th December 2014, Nataji Patil impersonated
himself as Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union and had
given a complaint to the Superintending Engineer, HESCOM,
Belagavi with a request to dismiss the complainant and two
other officials. As a result, on 10th December 2014,
Superintending Engineer addressed letter-Exhibit P13 to
General Manager, HESCOM, Hubli with a direction to keep him
under suspension. Letter Exhibit P14 was also addressed to
Managing Director, HESCOM to suspend him and two others.
That on 11th December 2014, Superintending Engineer,
HESCOM, Belagavi addressed letter to General Manager,
HESCOM, Hubli, stating that Nataji Patil was not the Vice
President at the time of writing letter and asked not to take any
– 74 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
action against him. Further, the General Secretary of KPTCL
Employees Union, Bangalore, in Circular dated 15th February
2016 stated that Y.M.Nittur was the Vice President during the
year 2014-2015 and not Nataji Patil. All the accused
impersonated themselves as office bearers of Union to defame
him by addressing false letters to his higher-ups. On 13th
November 2014, accused No.1, conspired with other accused,
prepared complaint and gave to Managing Director, HESCOM,
Hubli stating that he mentally harassed her. As a result, as per
the direction of Managing Director, HESCOM, the General
Manager formed Women Grievance Redressal Committee. The
said Committee conducted enquiry and examined the
witnesses, call details, location of mobile towers and Google
map. On the basis of above evidence, on 13th November 2014,
the complaint made by accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu was
dismissed stating that there is no truth in the complaint.
Detailed report of Women Grievance Redressal Committee and
a compact disc which was given on 04th June 2015, are marked
as Exhibits P15 & P16 respectively.
50. The First Information Report and ‘B’ report pertaining
to Crime No.25 of 2015 before Malmaruti Police Station are
– 75 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
marked as Exhibits P17 & P18. He has further deposed that on
05th December 2015, Nataji Patil, even though was not the Vice
President of KPTCL Employees Union, lodged complaint against
him before Superintending Engineer, HESCOM and requested to
suspend him from service. Other accused namely, Ajit M. Pujari,
Mallasarja S. Shahapurkar, B.L. Godalkundaragi, Rajendra
Bhupal Haliangali, Maruti B. Patil, Mallikarjuna S. Radihal,
Irayya G. Hiremath and Drakshayini M. Nesargi, have affixed
their signatures to the letter which is marked as Exhibit P19
and their signatures are marked as Exhibits P19(a) to P19(g).
51. He has deposed that on 11th December 2014, the
Superintending Engineer issued letter to General Manager,
HRD, HESCOM, Hubli, not to consider the letter written by
Nataji Patil in the capacity of Vice President. Further, he has
stated that on the date of the said letter, Nataji Patil was not
the Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union and as on that
date Y.M.Nittur was the Vice President. Those letters are
marked as Exhibits P20 & P21. Accused No.1 given statement
before jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 164(5) of Code of
Criminal Procedure pertaining to Crime No.286 of 2014 before
Malmaruti Police Station. The copy of the said statement is
– 76 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
marked as Exhibit P22. The accused filed objections to criminal
miscellaneous No.177 of 2015 before the Sessions Court with a
request not to grant bail to him. The copy of the same is
marked as Exhibit P23. On 6th March 2017, Rajashekar
Iragouda Patil, the Chief Editor of ‘In-Belagavi News’ has given
letter and DVD and the same is marked as Exhibits P24 to P26.
On 12th February 2017, he has shown the scene of offence to
the Investigating officer and the Investigation Officer has done
panchanama in presence of panch witnesses. He has given
further statement to police on 3rd April 2017.
52. He has further deposed that the Report dated 15th
December, 2014 given by General Secretary, KPTCL Employees
Union is marked as Exhibit P28. The letter dated 30th April,
2015 was issued by Women Grievance Redressal Committee,
asking him and other two persons to appear before them on
04th May 2015. Accordingly, he appeared before the Committee
on 4thMay 2015. At that time, before the enquiry room, along
with the accused No.1, Nataji Patil, B.L. Godalkundaragi,
Rajendra Bhupal, Maruti B. Patil, were also present and they
were instigating accused No.1. On that day, the Enquiry
Committee noticed these persons and recorded their attendance
– 77 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
and instigation, and called for reasons as to why they were
present in front of the enquiry committee. The copy of said
documents are marked as Exhibit P30. He has further deposed
that he has filed two complaints against accused No.1 and other
accused before Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.45 & 46 of
2017, which are marked as Exhibits P31 & P32.
53. He has further deposed that accused No.1 and other
accused conspired together with an intention to harass and
defame him. In this regard, they have created false
documents, false circumstances, false scene of offences and
lodged false complaints against him. Resultantly, he was sent
to judicial custody. The said news was published in print and
electronic media and he was suspended for no fault of his. He
has deposed that this fact was admitted by accused No.1 in
Criminal Revision Petitions No.54 & 55 of 2016. That the
accused instigated various associations and Women
Associations to protest against him, which humiliated him and
made to suffer mentally and the reputation which he earned
during his entire career, went in air and hence he has lodged
complaint against the accused No.1. He has further deposed
that accused 2 to 13 hatching conspiracy, lodged false
– 78 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
complaint against him with an intention to cause mental torture
and to ensure his suspension from service and to damage his
reputation. Accused conspired on 02nd, 05th and 08th
November, 2014, near parking place of Urban Division HESCOM
Office, Nehru Nagar, Belagavi and in pursuance of the said
conspiracy, accused No.1 lodged false complaint against him
and two others, viz. PW2-Maruti S Dodamani and
M.T.Thakkalaki on 13th November, 2014 before Managing
Director, HESCOM, Hubli, alleging mental and sexual
harassment committed by PW1 at KEBEA Building. In this
regard, General Manager (HRD), HESCOM, Hubli constituted
Women Grievance Redressal Committee to enquire into the said
complaint. The Committee conducted enquiry and came to the
conclusion that the complaint lodged by accused No.1 was false.
The report of the enquiry Committee is marked as Exhibit P15.
54. Accused 2 to 13 forged documents against him on 5th
December 2014 and submitted the same before Superintending
Engineer and the Managing Director, HESCOM for taking action
against him, PW2-Maruti Dodamani and M T Thakkalaki. The
said letters are marked as Exhibit P14 and P19. Based on said
letters, Superintending Engineer forwarded confidential letter
– 79 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
Exhibit P13 to General Manager, HRD, HESCOM Hubli on 10th
December 2014 for taking action against him and two others.
On 11th December 2014, once again, the Superintending
Engineer forwarded another letter-Exhibit P20 to General
Manager, HRD, HESCOM, Hubli requesting not to consider the
letter forwarded by him under Exhibit P13 stating that the
signatory Nataji Patil was not the Vice President of the KPTCL
Employees Union. Accused 2 to 13 had intentionally conspired
against him. The department took action against all the
accused for making false allegation and complaints against him
and two others, and accused 1 to 10 were suspended from
service. The departmental enquiry was conducted against
accused No.1 and the Committee imposed the punishment of
withholding increments against her. The accused No.1 during
the departmental enquiry, submitted letter to the Committee
stating that she lodged false complaint against him at the
instigation of accused 2 to 10. Thereafter, the enquiry was also
initiated against accused 2 to 10 and later they were found not
guilty by the Committee. Therefore, he filed application before
the Appellate Authority for de-nova Enquiry. Still the enquiry is
in progress against accused 2 to 10. Accused No.1 has
– 80 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
preferred Criminal Revision Petitions No.195 and 196 of 2022
before XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi for
reopening Criminal Revision Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016.
Accused No.1 has also preferred PCRs number 68, 69 & 70 of
2022 before JMFC-II Court, Belagavi against him and to reopen
the ‘B’ report submitted by the police in Crime No.286 of 2014,
19 of 2015 and 26 of 2015 before Malmaruti Police Station.
55. The complainant has produced the entire original file
pertaining to Crime No.286 of 2014 from JMFC-II Court,
Belagavi which are marked as Exhibits P45, P45(a) to P45(c).
Further, the entire original file pertaining to Crime No.19 of
2015 before Maalmaruti Police Station is received from JMFC-II
Court, Belagavi which is marked as Exhibit P46, P46(a) and
P46(b). The entire original file pertaining to Crime No.26 of
2015 before Malmaruti Police Station is received from JMFC-II
Court, Belagavi and the same is marked as Exhibit P47, P47(a)
and P47(b). The entire file pertaining to Crime No.25 of 2015
before Malmaruti Police Station received from JMFC-II Court,
Belagavi is marked as Exhibit P48, P48(a) and P48(b).
Similarly, the entire file received from XI Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Revision Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016 are
– 81 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
marked as Exhibits P49, P50 & P50(a). He has further deposed
that certified copy of departmental enquiry report of accused 1
to 10 is marked as Exhibit P51. Certified copy of Criminal
Revision Petition No.196 of 2022 pending before XI Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, is marked as Exhibit P52,
certified copy of criminal revision petition No.1 of 2022 pending
before XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, is marked as
Exhibit P53 and the certified copy of PCR No.70 pending before
JMFC-II Court, Belagavi is marked as Exhibit P54, certified copy
of PCR No.69 of 2022 pending before JMFC-II Court, Belagavi is
marked as Exhibit P55 and certified copy of PCR No.68 of 22
pending before JMFC-II Court, Belagavi is marked as Exhibit
P56. Certified copy of show cause notice issued on 20th
January 2015 along with enclosures is marked as Exhibit
P57 and the certified copy of proceedings of HESCOM,
Hubli dated 13th May 2015, along with enclosures, is
produced as Exhibit P58.
56. CW6-Maruti S. Dodamani, who is examined as PW2,
has deposed in his evidence that he knows all the accused. He
has worked as Lineman in HESCOM, Belagavi. Accused No.1-
B.V. Sindhu was working as Assistant Engineer. He knows the
– 82 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
complainant and the complainant was working as Executive
Engineer, Rural and Urban Divisions. He has deposed that the
complainant was working at Belagavi from 2001 to 2015 in
different cadres and later he was transferred to Hubli. The
complainant was a strict and honest officer. Accused B.V.
Sindhu was Assistant Engineer in Rural sub-division. One Vinod
Karur was Assistant Executive Engineer and he was the
controlling officer to B.V. Sindhu. Accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu
and Vinod Karur were not attending to their duty promptly.
They were engaged in Union activities. PW1 being a strict
officer did not tolerate their behaviour. He warned them which
made them to hate him. They invited him to join them so that
he will be accommodated in a good position in HESCOM Union.
They also invited M.T.Thakkalaki to join them. All of them
conspired together to get himself, PW1 and M.T. Thakkalaki
suspended. They wrote letter to Managing Director, HESCOM,
Hubli stating that PW1, himself and Thakkalaki have mentally
harassed B.V. Sindhu at KEBEA Building on 13th November
2014. They went to Hubli and gave complaint to the Managing
Director, HESCOM and, in turn, the Managing Director ordered
to form a Women Grievance Redressal Committee consisting of
– 83 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Assistant
Executive Engineer. Enquiry was conducted in detail. They also
investigated as to our mobile tower locations with regard to call
details as on the date of alleged incident to B.V. Sindhu mobile
phone, and found that the entire complaint was baseless and
concocted and dismissed the complaint and given report to the
Managing Director, which is marked as Exhibit P15.
57. He has further deposed that on 19th November 2014,
accused conspiring together, went to Malmaruti Police Station
and lodged complaint stating that on 13th November 2014 at
Engineers Association Building, PW1 sexually harassed accused
No.1. Since the said offences are non-bailable, the police
arrested PW1, himself and Thakkalaki and produced before
JMFC-II Court, Belagavi. The Court remanded them to judicial
custody and they were in judicial custody for two days, i.e. on
23rd and 24th November, 2014. Later, they got enlarged on
bail. Thereafter, other accused through accused No.1, filed
Criminal Revision Petition No.81 of 2015 before District Court
seeking cancellation of bail which came to be rejected. Police
filed ‘B’ report stating that no such incident happened which
was accepted by the JMFC-II Court, Belagavi. Challenging the
– 84 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
acceptance of ‘B’ report, again accused No.1 preferred criminal
revision petition before District Court. In the said petition, she
filed affidavit stating that she has filed false complaint because
of instigation of other accused. Further, she admitted that no
such incident had taken place and PW1 did not harass her
mentally or sexually. Accordingly, the revision petition came to
be dismissed. In the meantime, accused No.1 filed a complaint
stating that PW1 is forcing her to withdraw complaint in Crime
No.19 of 2015 filed under Sections 504 and 506 of Indian Penal
Code before Malmaruti Police Station. In the said crime after
investigation, police filed ‘B’ report stating that there is no truth
in the complaint. Again accused No.1 filed criminal revision
petition No.54 of 2016 and in the said revision petition also, she
filed affidavit stating that due to instigation of other accused,
she lodged false complaint and she admitted that PW1 did not
harass her mentally or physically. The said Criminal Revision
petition also came to be dismissed. Accused No.1 went to Civil
Hospital and admitted herself on the pretext that she attempted
to commit suicide and given statement against PW1 stating that
due to harassment of PW1, she tried to commit suicide. She
lodged complaint against PW1 in Crime No.26 of 2015, under
– 85 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
Sections 306, 511 and 109 of Indian Penal Code. Again, PW1
was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and he was in
custody for nine days. In the meantime, PW1 was suspended
because he was in custody for more than 48 hours. In this
regard, accused No.1 gave wide publicity in print and electronic
media, defaming the complainant. Accused lodged complaint
before Chief Minister Home Minister, Power Minister and
opposition leaders. These were widely published. The image of
PW1 in paper cuttings and TV footage are marked as Exhibits
P9 & P10.
58. He has further deposed that during 2014-2015 Nataji
Patil was not the Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union. In
spite of that, he has used letterhead of the Union impersonating
himself as Vice President and gave complaint to Superintending
Engineer and the Managing Director, HESCOM. The
Superintending Engineer has written letter to General Manager,
HESCOM instructing him to take action against them. Later, the
Superintending Engineer written letter stating that the person
who has given complaint was not the Vice President and the
said letter was concocted. He has deposed that the accused
concocted and created false documents and filed false
– 86 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
complaints against them to defame them stating that they have
physically and mentally harassed accused No.1. PW1 was
arrested and was detained in judicial custody because of false
complaint made by the accused.
59. Further, he has stated that the accused had conspired
and filed case in Crime No.286 of 2014, and in that case, police
arrested him and after investigation, investigating officer has
submitted the ‘B’ report. Accused No.1 questioned the same
before the District Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.55 of
2016 and in that petition, accused No.1 had filed affidavit
stating that on instigation of other accused, she has filed the
case against them and thereafter, the revision petition came to
be dismissed.
60. CW7-Antu Kamble, Superintending Engineer, Corporate
Office, HESCOM Hubli, examined as PW3, has deposed in his
evidence that from 21st January, 2014 to 16th September, 2015,
he had worked as Superintending Engineer, HESCOM, Hubli and
during his tenure at Belagavi, PW1 was working as Executive
Engineer, Rural Division, Belagavi. That, Nataji Patil and others
have written letter to him, stating that they are Union members
– 87 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
of KPTCL and that PW1 and others have physically harassed
B.V. Sindhu and requested him to take action against them. In
this regard, he addressed a letter to General Manager on 10th
December 2014. On the next day, i.e. on 11th December 2014,
he came to know that PW1 harassed accused No.1 on 30th
November 2014 at KEBEA Building, Belagavi. On 15th
November 2014, as per the directions of Managing Director, he
informed the internal committee to enquire into the matter
regarding complaint lodged by B.V. Sindhu. The Committee
consisted of three senior officers headed by one Smt. Sudha
Sail, Assistant Engineer. The said Smt. Sudha Sail came out of
the Committee stating that she was not in good health. On 2nd
December 2014, again he formed Committee headed by Smt.
Vanishri, Assistant Executive Engineer. On 6th December 2014,
the said Committee convened meeting and studied the matter
elaborately, it recorded the statements of PW1-T.B. Majjagi,
M.T.Thakkalaki, Maruti S. Dodamani and Karur. Accused-B.V.
Sindhu did not prefer to give any statement stating that she
has already filed complaint against the accused. At that time,
Union approached him stating that the Head of the Committee,
Smt. Vanishri was working as Assistant Executive Engineer,
– 88 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
under PW1 and therefore, she cannot give justice to B.V.
Sindhu. No lady officer came forward to Head the Committee
and they requested him to ask KPTCL to form the Committee.
Accordingly, he wrote letter to General Manager requesting him
to form a committee to enquire into the matter. On 24th
February 2015, Committee was formed comprising of one Chief
Engineer of BESCOM, one Superintending Engineer from
Bangalore Electricity Board and another Member from HESCOM.
The Committee made four sittings and conducted detailed
enquiry. On 4th June 2015, Committee gave its final report
stating that no such incident happened on 30th November, 2014
and complaint given by B.V. Sindhu is false. The said report is
marked as Exhibit P50. Prior to that, on 6th December 2014, he
issued notice to form Committee in respect of complaint made
by B.V. Sindhu and they have given their reply to the said
complaint which is marked as Exhibit P27. On 15th December
2014, he wrote letter to General Manager stating that no such
incident happened. On 5th December 2014, Nataji Patil and
others have written letter to him, stating that they are the
Members of KPTCL Employees Union and they, PW1 and others,
have physically harassed B.V. Sindhu and requested him to
– 89 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
take action against them. In this regard, he addressed a letter
to General Manager on 10th December 2014. On the next day,
i.e., on 11th December 2014, he came to know that Nataji Patil
was not at all the Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union and
he used fake letterhead. He has deposed that he again wrote
letter to General Manager stating that the said Nataji Patil was
not the Vice President of the KPTCL Employees Union and asked
to ignore the letter-Exhibit P14. At that time, one Y.M. Nittur
was the Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union, but the said
Nataji Patil impersonated himself as Vice President. The
Secretary of HESCOM Union issued Circular stating that since
Nittur was retiring, Nataji Patil was appointed as General
Secretary. When the letter was written to him on 5th December
2014, Nataji Patil was not the Vice President of KPTCL
Employees Union.
61. He has further deposed that on 23rd June 2015, the
Committee which had given the report had asked him to send
the attendance certificate of B.V. Sindhu and some other
employees. He sent their attendance certificate stating that
some of them were on leave, and others were on OOD. B.V.
Sindhu was accompanied by Ajit M Pujari, Mallasarju
– 90 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
Shahapurkar, Rajendra Haliangali, B.G. Kundargi, Hiremath
M.B. Patil, Subhash Hulloli and Nataji Patil. The Court posed a
question under Section 165 of Code of Criminal Procedure as to
whether B.V. Sindhu was harassed by PW1. To that, his answer
was ‘No’. He has further deposed that on 3rd February 2015,
B.V. Sindhu lodged complaint against PW1-T.B. Majjagi and he
was taken into judicial custody from 03rd to 11th February 2015.
Since PW1 was a Government Servant and was in judicial
custody for more than 48 hours, the Managing Director,
HESCOM, Hubli, kept him under suspension. The said
suspension order is marked as Exhibit P33. On 2nd May 2015,
he received letter from Malmaruti Police Station requesting the
details of the case of B.V. Sindhu and he had given the entire
documents pertaining to the case, viz. the letter given to him,
enquiry conducted against PW1-T.B. Majjagi and the enquiry
report.
62. On 20th September 2014, B.V. Sindhu was transferred
by the Chief Engineer HESCOM from Rural Division to Urban
Division Belagavi. The said transfer was cancelled on 31st
October 2014 by Chief Engineer as per the directions of the
Managing Director. He has deposed that only the Chief
– 91 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
Engineer and the officers above him, can transfer B.V. Sindhu.
For this reason, B.V.Sindhu got enraged with PW1 and she was
alleging that it is PW1 who got her transferred. He has deposed
that PW1 was not responsible for transfer of B.V. Sindhu. PW1
was very honest and sincere officer throughout his service.
Accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu, along with Ajit M Pujeri, Nataji Patil,
Rajendra Haliangali, Mallikarjun Radihal, Maruti B. Patil and
others created false Documents against PW1. As the said
matter got published/flashed in print and electronic media
continuously, it defamed the image of PW1 in general public, so
also, PW1 was detained in judicial custody without any reason.
In this regard, Police has recorded his statement. He has
deposed that on the previous date of hearing, by mistake, he
has deposed that PW1-T.B. Majjagi was not harassed by
accused. It is recorded as (Counsel for accused raised objection
for this question. The said objection kept open and it will be
decided at the time of judgment). He has deposed in his
evidence that on 5th December 2014, accused made
representation to him as per Exhibit P14. The original report
submitted by the Women’s Grievance Redressal Committee, is
at Exhibit P60.
– 92 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
63. CW4-Raju Kotre, working as Driver and CW5-Dilip
Dabade, Contract worker who are examined as PWs4 and 5,
have deposed as to the mahazar conducted by the Police, as
per Exhibits P35 to P42.
64. CW8-Vinod Karur, Assistant Executive Engineer, KPTCL
Bengaluru who is examined as PW6 has deposed in his evidence
that from 2012 to 12th December 2019 he worked as Assistant
Executive Engineer, HESCOM, Belagavi. During that period,
accused Sindhu was working as Assistant Engineer (Technical)
in their office. He also know other accused, who were all
working in different capacities at different places in Rural and
Urban Divisions of HESCOM, Belagavi. He also knows PW1 and
at that time, he was working as an Executive Engineer, Rural
Division, Belagavi, and he was his immediate superior. PW1
was a strict and honest officer and because of his strict nature,
many of the employees working under him were not liking him.
65. He has deposed that on 14th November 2014, B.V.
Sindhu lodged a complaint to the Managing Director stating that
he called B.V. Sindhu over phone and informed her that PW1
was waiting for her in Stores to discuss regarding repair of lorry
– 93 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
belonging to HESCOM. B.V. Sindhu went to Stores where
storekeeper M.T.Thakkalaki and Maruti S. Dodamani informed
Sindhu that PW1 was waiting for her at KEBEA Building and
B.V. Sindhu went to Association Building. There PW1
misbehaved with her and outraged her modesty. In this
regard, complaint was made to Managing Director, HESCOM,
wherein the Managing Director, HESCOM directed the
Superintending Engineer to conduct enquiry regarding veracity
of the complaint lodged by accused No.1. On 6th December
2014, the Superintending Engineer issued show cause notice
Exhibit P21 to PW6-Karur, PW1-T.B. Majjagi, M.T. Thakkalaki
and Maruti S. Dodamani, to which, he gave reply on the same
day. In the reply, he has stated that he neither called Sindhu
nor asked her to go to meet PW1 in Stores. M.T. Thakkalaki
and Maruti S. Dodamani have also given their reply, stating that
B.V. Sindhu did not come to Stores and they have not informed
her to go to Association building. The Superintending Engineer,
after going through the entire substance, given report to
Managing Director as per Exhibit P21, stating that there is no
truth in the complaint-Exhibit P43 given by B.V.Sindhu.
Because of the false complaint, PW1 suffered insult in front of
– 94 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
his colleagues. Accused B.V. Sindhu lodged complaint before
Women Grievance Redressal Committee at KPTCL, Bengaluru.
All the accused along with accused No.1, went to Bengaluru to
attend the enquiry. They said Committee obtained call details
from the Service Provider pertaining to telephone number of
PW1, himself and B.V.Sindhu and found that there were no
outgoing calls to cellphone of Sindhu from his phone. In this
regard, the Committee, dismissed the complaint and gave a
report that the complaint was baseless. Accused No.1 lodged
three false complaints against PW1 at the instigation of other
accused. Accused B.V.Sindhu acted as she tried to commit
suicide. Case was registered against accused B.V. Sindhu and
PW1 was arrested and detained in judicial custody for nine days
and he was suspended from service. Accused B.V. Sindhu filed
affidavits in Criminal Revision Petitions stating that she was
innocent and due to instigation of other accused, she lodged
false complaints. At that time, he came to know that other
accused conspired with accused No.1 and gave false complaint
by creating false documents. Nataji Patil created a letterhead
stating that he was Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union
and addressed a letter to Superintending Engineer against PW1
– 95 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
and affixed his signature to the letter in the capacity of Vice
President. At that point of time, Nataji Patil was not the Vice
President of the KPTCL Employees Union and Y.M.Nittur was the
Vice President. Accused Sindhu and other accused widely
published this false news in print and electronic media and gave
false representations to the Chief Minister, Home Minister and
also given representation to local Ministers. She also created
false complaint with the instigation of other accused. She also
acted as trying to commit suicide. Because of the false
complaint made by accused No.1, PW1-T. B. Majjagi was in
judicial custody for nine days.
66. CW3 Maruti Bovi who is said to be the panch witness,
examined as PW7, has deposed as to the Panchanama
conducted by the police which is marked as Exhibits P59 to P68.
67. CW12 Shankarappa Mural, Director, Truth Lab,
Bangalore examined as PW8 has deposed in his evidence as to
the examination of admitted signature and disputed signature
of accused A2-Nataji Patil, A4-Mallasarja Shahapurkar, A7-
Mallikarjuna Redihal, A13-D M Nesargi, A9-Rajendra Haliangali;
– 96 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
A11-Irayya Hiremath, A3-Ajit Pujeri, A12-M B Patil. He has also
deposed as to the issuance of report as per Exhibit P69.
68. CW15-Channakeshava Basappa Tengarikar and CW16-
Jagadish Hanchanal, Police Inspectors, examined as PWs9 and
10 have deposed as to their respective investigation conducted
by them.
69. Sri Rajashekar Patil, who is not shown as witness in the
charge sheet examined as PW1, who is Editor-in-chief of News
Channel Belagavi, has deposed as to the issuance of Compact
disc at the request of PW1 as per Exhibit P25.
70. Sri Vijaya Dodamani, who is also not shown in the
charge sheet examined as PW12, has deposed in his evidence
that as per the orders of PW9, on 15th March, 2017 he has
visited the Office of Managing Director, HESCOM, Hubli and
received six documents from Manager (Technical) and handed
over the same to PW9 on the same day. The Investigating
officer has seized the documents in under panchanama as per
Exhibits P59 to P65.
71. Laxmipathi Hanumantharayappa, Executive Engineer,
who is not shown in the charge sheet examined as PW13, has
– 97 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
deposed in his evidence that between 2014 to 2017 he was
General Secretary in the KPTCL Employees Union. He has
issued Exhibit P64. In the decision taken by the Central
Executive Committee on 29th January, 2016 since Y M Nittur
was retiring on superannuation, the Committee has appointed
Nataji Patil as Vice President of the KPTCL Employees Union for
the remaining period between 2014-2017, with immediate
effect. He has deposed that in Exhibit P80-List of Office bearers
for the period 2014-17, the name of Nataji Patil is at Sl.No.44,
who is shown as General Secretary.
72. A careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record,
reveals that complainant PW1 has relied on the complaint filed
on 19th November 2014 by accused Sindhu before Malmaruti
Police Station in Crime No.286 of 2014 as per Exhibit P3 and
after registration, investigating Officer conducted investigation
and submitted ‘B’ report which is marked as Exhibit P4. As
regards complaint filed by accused No.1 in crime No.19 of 2015
as per Exhibit P5, after completion of investigation,
investigating officer had submitted ‘B’ report as per Exhibit P6.
The copy of First Information Report and the ‘B’ report in crime
No.26 of 2015 are marked as Exhibit P7 and P8. The affidavits
– 98 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
filed by accused B.V. Sindhu in Criminal Revision Petitions
No.54 and 55 of 2016 on the file of XI Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Belagavi are marked as Exhibits P11 & P12.
73. Nataji Patil impersonated himself as Vice President of
KPTCL Employees Union and given complaint to Superintending
Engineer as per Exhibit P14. PW1 filed three complaints which
were merged together and common investigation was
conducted and charge sheet was filed against accused No.1.
Thereafter, on the basis of the application filed by learned
Public Prosecutor, learned Sessions Judge impleaded other
accused as Accused 2 to 13 to face trial along with accused
No.1 and thereafter, the trial Court convicted the accused for
commission of alleged offences.
74. With regard to Exhibit P3-first information report,
registered on the basis of complaint filed by accused No.1 on
13th November, 2014, Malmaruti Police have registered case in
crime No.286 of 2014 against T.B. Majjagi, M.T.Thakkalaki and
Maruti S Dodamani for commission of offences punishable
under Section 354A, 341, 504, 506, 109 and 34 Indian Penal
Code. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted
– 99 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
‘B’ final report as per Exhibit P4 under Section 173 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, in which the Investigating Officer has
stated that as per averments made in the complaint, the
evidence was not available in respect of the alleged incidents.
Further, it is submitted that complainant-PW1 has also filed
complaint against the accused.
75. A careful examination of the ‘B’ final report makes it
clear that the Investigating Officer has not expressed any
opinion as to the statement of the accused B.V. Sindhu, marked
by prosecution as per Exhibit P22 which is recorded by the
learned JMFC-II, Belagavi in Criminal Misc. No.286 of 2014, in
which the accused has clearly stated as to criminal intimidation,
insult and also harassment said to have been committed by the
complainant-accused to PW1-T.B. Majjagi. Without expressing
any opinion on this statement recorded by Magistrate under
Section 164(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Investigating
Officer has submitted ‘B’ report. Investigating officer who has
filed a charge-sheet against accused No.1 has not explained
anything as to why the concerned Investigating officer who has
filed the ‘B’ report as Exhibit P4, has not assigned any reasons
for rejecting the testimony of the victim. Exhibit P45 which is
– 100 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
the order sheet pertaining to Crime No.286 of 2014 on the file
of JMFC-II Court, Belagavi, reveals that after submission of ‘B’
final report in Crime No.286 of 2014, notice was issued to the
complainant and that on 31st December 2015, the counsel for
the complainant prays time for objections. Then case was
posted to 8th January 2016. On that day objection was filed and
order was pronounced on 11th January 2016. The said Order
reads as under:
“Perused the materials placed before me. There are
no grounds to proceed with the case at this stage.
Hence, ‘B’ report filed by PSI, Malmaruti Police Station is
accepted. The case is closed.”
76. Learned Magistrate has not passed any speaking order.
He has not assigned any reason or given any opinion as to the
statement of objections filed by the accused No.1. The
materials placed before us reveals that PW1-T.B. Majjagi has
effectively participated in the proceedings, including the
proceedings in Crime No.286 of 2014. Though the
Investigating officer has submitted the ‘B’ final report as per
Exhibit P4, he has not stated anything as to column 15 of the
‘B’ Final report which deals with “J¥sïLDgï ¸ÀĽîzÀÝ°è L¦¹ 192, 211
– 101 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ GzÉÝòvÀ PÀæªÀÄ (if First Information Report is false,
steps taken under Sections 192 and 211 of IPC”). This column
is left blank. When the Investigating officer has not taken any
action under Sections, 192 & 211 of IPC against the
complainant, PW1 would have taken necessary legal steps to
initiate action against accused No.1 who has filed false
complaint for commission of offence under Section 192 & 211 of
Indian Penal Code. The investigating officer who has filed
charge-sheet against accused No.1 in this case, also has not
examined Sri B.R.Gaddekar, the Investigating officer who
submitted the ‘B’ final report in crime No.286 of 2014 and has
also not explained anything in this regard. Even PW1 has also
not whispered anything as to not taking any legal action before
the Magistrate in crime No.286 of 2014, to initiate legal action
against accused No.1 for commission of offence punishable
under Section 192 & 211 of Indian Penal Code.
77. The prosecution has produced Exhibit P5 copy of FIR
filed by Malmaruti Police Station in which accused No.1 has
lodged complaint against PW1-T.B. Majjagi for commission of
offences punishable under 504 & 506 of IPC. After
investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted ‘B’ final report
– 102 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure as per Exhibit
P6 in which also the Investigating officer has not initiated any
legal proceedings against accused No.1 for commission of
offence punishable and Sections 192 & 211 of Indian Penal
Code, though it was found that the First Information Report was
false. The present Investigating Officer who has filed the
charge-sheet against accused No.1, has also not offered any
explanation in this regard and he has not examined Shri
B.R.Gaddekar the Police Sub-Inspector of Malmaruti Police
Station who has submitted ‘B’ final report with regard to not
taking any action under Sections 192 & 211 of Indian Penal
Code.
78. A perusal of Order Sheet Exhibit P46 pertaining to
Crime No.19 of 2015, reveals that on 23rd November, 2015,
complainant was present and sought time to file objections to
‘B’ Report. Then the case was posted to 26th November, 2015.
On that day, case was adjourned to 02nd December, 2015. On
02nd December, 2015, application along with Memo was filed
under Section 256 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the
case was adjourned to 14th December, 2015. Later, the case
was posted on 21st December, 2015, 31st December 2015, 07th
– 103 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
January 2016 and on 08th January, 2016. On 08th January,
2016, Court has heard arguments and then on 11th January,
2016, the Court has passed the following order:
“Perused the materials placed before me. There are
no grounds to proceed with the case at this stage.
Hence, ‘B’ report filed by PSI, Malmaruti Police Station is
accepted.
The case is closed.”
79. The above Order dated 11th January, 2016 is not a
speaking order. Even sufficient opportunity was not provided to
the complainant to file her statement of objections and ‘B’
report was mechanically accepted.
80. Insofar as offence under Sections 306, 511 and 109 of
Indian Penal Code is concerned, the prosecution has produced
Exhibit P7 copy of First Information Report registered on the
basis of complaint filed by accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu against
PW1-T.B. Majjagi for offence punishable under Sections 306,
511 and 109 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation,
Investigating Officer submitted ‘B’ final report under Section
173 of Code of Criminal Procedure as per Exhibit P47. The
main allegation of prosecution, as stated by PW1, is that the
– 104 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu has lodged complaint against PW1
upon instigation of other accused before Malmaruti Police
Station in Crime No.26 of 2015 for offence punishable under
Sections 306 and 511 of Indian Penal Code and in this case, he
was arrested on 03rd February, 2015 and he was in judicial
custody from 03rd to 11th February 2015. In this case also,
after investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted ‘B’
final report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure
stating that as per the decision of High Court, charge cannot be
made against accused under Sections 306 and 511 of Indian
Penal Code. Notice was issued to the complainant. She
appeared before the Court and sought time to file objections.
But the prayer was rejected on 08th January 2016 and on the
same day, the learned Magistrate has passed an order that
“there are no grounds to accept the contention of the
complainant. Hence, ‘B’ report is accepted.” When the
complainant-B.V. Sindhu lodged a complaint, the concerned
Police ought not to have registered the case against the
accused-T.B. Majjagi for commission of offence punishable
under Sections 306 and 511 of Indian Penal Code which is not
sustainable under law. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the
– 105 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SATVIR
SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB, reported in AIR 2001 SC 2828 relied
upon by the learned counsel for the accused. In the said
judgment, at paragraphs 7 & 8 of the judgment, it is observed
thus:
“7. At the outset, we may point out that on the
aforesaid facts no offence linked with Section 306 IPC can
be found against any of the appellants. The said section
306 penalises abetment of suicide. It is worded thus: “If
any person commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” It is
a unique legal phenomenon in the Indian Penal Code that
the only act, the attempt of which alone will become an
offence. The person who attempts to commit suicide is
guilty of the offence under Section 309 IPC whereas the
person who committed suicide cannot be reached at all.
Section 306 renders the person who abets the
commission of suicide punishable for which the condition
precedent is that suicide should necessarily have been
committed. It is possible to abet the commission of
suicide. But nobody would abet a mere attempt to commit
suicide. It would be preposterous if law could afford to
penalise an abetment to the offence of mere attempt to
commit suicide.
– 106 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
8. Learned Sessions Judge went wrong in convicting
the appellants under Section 116 linked with Section 306,
IPC. The former is “abetment of offence punishable with
imprisonment — if offence be not committed”. But the
crux of the offence under Section 306 itself is abetment.
In other words, if there is no abetment there is no
question of the offence under Section 306 coming into
play. It is inconceivable to have abetment of an
abetment. Hence there cannot be an offence under
Section 116 read with Section 306 IPC. Therefore, the
High Court was correct in altering the conviction from the
penalising provisions fastened with the appellants by the
Sessions Court.”
81. On the basis of this judgment, the learned Principal and
Sessions Judge, Belagavi has granted bail in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.177 of 2015 dated 11th February, 2015. On
perusal of material placed before us, it is evident that the
complainant-B.V. Sindhu had survived and therefore, the
offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code has not been
completed. Since the offence has not been completed, there
cannot be any abetment to commit suicide. The observation of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SATVIR SINGH is
aptly applicable to the case inasmuch as offences registered are
under Sections 306, 511 and 109 of Indian Penal Code. After
the Investigating Officer has submitted ‘B’ final report, the
– 107 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
complaint was filed by the complainant with mistaken facts.
When accused B.V. Sindhu had lodged complaint against this
accused, it is the duty of the concerned police to verify whether
the offence under Sections 306, 511 and 109 are applicable to
the case on hand as required under Section 157 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. Unfortunately, without application of
mind, concerned Police Officer has registered the case against
PW1 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 306,
511 and 109 of Indian Penal Code and also arrested the
accused. Thereafter, he submitted ‘B’ final report contending
that the offence under Sections 306, 511 and 109 are not
maintainable in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court. The
conduct of Investigating Officer reveals that due to
inadvertence and ignorance of proper provisions of law, the
Investigating Officer has registered case against PW1 and the
accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu is not responsible for registration of
case against PW1. Under the given set of circumstances, we
are of the considered view that all the accused are not
responsible for registration of case in Crime No.26 of 2015,
which ended in filing of ‘B’ final report. In this regard, PW1
would have taken necessary legal steps against the delinquent
– 108 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
police officer who has registered this type of case against him,
instead PW1 has initiated proceedings against the accused,
which is not sustainable under law.
82. On careful scrutiny of entire material on record, it is
crystal clear that, on the basis of the three ‘B’ final reports
pertaining to Crime Nos.286 of 2014, 19 of 2015 and 26 of
2015 which are accepted by the learned Magistrate, the finding
given by the Women’s Grievance Redressal Committee Exhibit
P15 and the affidavits Exhibits P11 & P12 filed by the accused
No.1 before the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge in
Criminal Revision Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016, the charges
are framed against the accused for the offence punishable
under Sections 120B, 195, 211, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with
Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Mere acceptance of ‘B’ Final
reports, will not constitute the offence under Section 192 and
211 of Indian Penal Code unless the Investigating Officer or the
concerned accused have proceeded against the complainant
who has filed false complaint by taking necessary legal steps as
required under Sections 195 read with Section 340 of Code of
Criminal Procedure in the same proceedings. The offences
under Sections 192 and 211 are non-cognizable. These
– 109 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
offences are pertaining to the offences affecting the
administration of justice. In such circumstance, when an
application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any court is of
opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice than an
enquiry has to be made into any offence referred to in clause
(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have
been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that court
or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or
given in evidence in a proceeding in that court, such court may,
after such preliminary enquiry if any, as it thinks necessary –
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having
jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the
accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged
offence is non-bailable and the court thinks it
necessary so to do, send the accused in custody
to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give
evidence before such Magistrate;
– 110 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in
respect of an offence may, in any case where that court
has neither made a complaint, under Sub-section (1) in
respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the
making of such complaint, be exercised by the court to
which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning
of sub-section (4) of Section 195.
A complaint made under this section shall be signed-
(a) where the court making the complaint in a High
Court, by such officer of the court a the court
may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the
court or by such officer of the Court as the Court
may authorise in writing in this behalf.
83. In the instant case, though PW1 or Investigating Officer
have not filed any complaint as defined under Section 2(d) of
Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance against the accused on the police report which does
not include the same as defined under Section 2(d) of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. The trial Court ought not to have
taken cognizance against the accused for the aforesaid offences
as the abovesaid offences are relating to the administration of
justice as defined under Chapter XXVI of Code of Criminal
– 111 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
Procedure. In this regard, we also gain support from the
judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SANTOKH
SINGH and in the case of BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE
LIMITED AND ANOTHER v. PRASAD VASSUDEV KENI AND
OTHERS reported in 2020(20) SCC 1 relied upon learned
counsel for the appellants/accused Sriyuths Ashok R.
Kalyanshetty and Neelendra R. Gunde. Keeping in mind the
provision of Sections 195 and 340 of Code of Criminal
Procedure and with the background of aforestated decisions, we
are of the considered opinion that the learned Magistrate
cannot take cognizance against the accused for the aforesaid
commission of offence which pertains to administration of
justice, except on the complaint. On this count also, the
judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the
trial Court is not sustainable under law.
84. Exhibit P48 contain documents pertaining to Crime
No.25 of 2015 on the file of JMFC-II Court, Belagavi. The First
Information Report produced in the said case reveals that on
the basis of the complaint filed by S.Y. Sidhnal, Malmaruti
Police have registered case against B.V. Sindhu for commission
of offence under Section 309 Indian Penal Code and after
– 112 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted ‘B’ final
report. Notice was issued to the complainant. Same was duly
served. Complainant remained absent. Hence, the learned
Magistrate has accepted the ‘B’ report on 18th November, 2015.
In this ‘B’ Report also column No.15 is left blank. In this case,
Court has not issued any notice to accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu.
Therefore, Exhibit P48 is not at all concerned to initiate
proceedings against accused No.1-B.V. Sindhu. Accordingly,
Exhibit P48 will not be of any help to the case of the
prosecution.
85. Exhibit P49 is the Order sheet and proceedings
pertaining to Criminal Revision petition No.54 of 2016 against
the order dated 11th January, 2016 passed in Crime No.19 of
2015. The same reveals that notice was issued in this case to
respondent-State and to respondent No.2-T.B.Majjige in the
said Revision Petition. Sri A.R. Patil, learned counsel appeared
for Sri T.B. Majjagi and sought time to file objections till 19th
March, 2016. On that day, again the case was posted to 13th
May, 2016. In the meanwhile, accused B.V. Sindhu, filed
advance application. The Court has passed order as under:
– 113 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024“The Petitioner filed an Affidavit to permit her to
withdraw the Revision Petition. On hearing and satisfying
as to voluntariness of the petitioner and also as the
Jurisdictional Police filed ‘B’ report after investigation &
the same is accepted by the Hon’ble Trial Court.
Hence, the same is allowed and the petitioner is permitted
to withdraw the petition.
Hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/-
11/05″
86. The copy of the Board Application filed by accused
No.1-B.V. Sindhu, which is not signed by the Advocate, and the
affidavit of B.V. Sindhu, are also produced.
87. Exhibit P50 is the order sheet pertaining to Criminal
Revision Petitions No.55 of 2016 which is preferred against the
order dated 11th January, 2016 in Summary case No.156 of
2015 by JMFC-II Court, Belagavi pertaining to Crime No.286 of
2014 filed by B.V. Sindhu, in which also Court has passed an
order to issue notice to respondents 1 to 4 and after service of
notice, Sri A.R. Patil, files power on behalf of respondents 2 and
3 on 19th March, 2016 and case was posted to 23rd April, 2016.
Again, case was posted on 13th May 2016 and in the
– 114 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
meanwhile, i.e., on 11th May 2016, B.V. Sindhu, filed Board
Application with affidavit without the signature of the Counsel.
The learned Principal and Sessions Judge passed an order on
11th May, 2106, as under:
“Petitioner filed Affidavit seeking to withdraw the petition.
Heard and satisfied as to her voluntariness and the same
is allowed as this revision is again the acceptance of ‘B’
Report filed by Jurisdictional Police.
Hence the Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/-
11/05.”
88. Exhibit P45(c) is the letter written by Superintending
Engineer (E1 O & M), HESCOM, Belagavi addressed to General
Manager (Admn. & HRD) Corporate Office, HESCOM, Hubli, in
which the Superintending Engineer has opined that T.B. Majjagi
and other Officers have not misbehaved with B.V. Sindhu,
Assistant Engineer on 13th November, 2014 at KEBEA Building
and also opined that no sufficient evidence in favour of B.V.
Sindhu is produced/disclosed along with her representation
before him so far, and the allegations made by B.V. Sindhu are
totally baseless and far from truth. This decision taken by
concerned authority is not a ground to file the charge sheet
– 115 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
against the accused for the alleged commission of offence. If
any offence, punishable under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200,
205 to 211 and 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure, is said to
have committed in, or in relation to, any proceedings in any
Court or any lawful authority of public servants, then the
concerned authority would have taken necessary legal action
against the concerned complainant who has filed false
complaint/affidavit, etc. under Section 195 read with Section
340 of Code of Criminal Procedure as the offences affect the
administration of justice. The concerned Courts have no
jurisdiction to take cognizance for the offence under Sections
172 to 188, 193 to196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228, 471,
475 or Section 476 of Code of Criminal Procedure except on the
complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court
as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf or some
other Court to which the Court is subordinate. But in the case
on hand, the Superintending Engineer (E1) has not initiated any
proceedings under Section 195 read with 340 of Code of
Criminal Procedure against this accused. Even PW1 has not
filed any application under Section 195 of Indian Penal Code
read with Section 340 of Code of Civil Procedure to initiate
– 116 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
proceedings against complainant-B.V. Sindhu, for filing false
complaint against PW1. Therefore, on the basis of this report
Exhibit P45, the Court cannot take cognizance without the
complaint being filed before the Court. In the case on hand,
Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet. On the basis of the
police report, the Court has taken cognizance, which is not
sustainable under law.
89. Now, the question that arise for our consideration is
whether affidavits Exhibits P11 & P12 filed by accused No.1
before the District Court in criminal revision petitions No.54 and
55 of 2016 are sufficient to convict the accused for the alleged
commission of offences against all the accused? In this regard,
we have gone through the contents of affidavit-Exhibits P11 &
P12. The defence set up by accused No.1 that Exhibits P11 &
12 are filed under inducement and threat and the same have
not been filed on own volition. Exhibits P11 & P12 filed before
the XI Additional Principal District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi in
Criminal Revision Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016, do not
contain the cause-title. These affidavits are commencing as
“Affidavit”. In both Exhibits P11 and P12, the paragraph 1 is
commencing as “£Á£ÀÄ F ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀ½zÀÄÝ, F
– 117 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæªÀiÁt¸À®Ä CºÀð½gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.”. But the case number is not
shown in both affidavits. In the last paragraph of both
affidavits, the accused No.1 has stated that, she has voluntarily
withdrawn criminal Revision Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016
without any pressure.
90. Every affidavit, shall set-forth the name of the Court
and the cause-title of the proceedings or matter in which it is
sought to be used as required under Chapter XVI of Karnataka
Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968. The same is not complied
with. Exhibits P11 & P12 reveal that both affidavits are made
by deponent on 10th May 2016 before the Notary. The Notary
has not mentioned the registration number of these affidavits
as required under Rule 11(2) of Notaries Rules, 1956. Notarial
Register maintained by the Notary in From-XV of the Notaries
Rules, 1956 also not produced by the prosecution. Before
receiving these affidavits on record, the learned District Judge
has not enquired as to why her advocate has not filed advance
application? why her advocate has filed these types of affidavits
without setting forth the cause title? The accused No.1 has filed
Board application on 11th May 2016 by serving copy to the
respondent Counsel. The same is endorsed on board
– 118 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
application. In the board application filed by accused No.1, the
concerned advocate who has appeared on behalf of the
accused, has not affixed his signature. The case was posted to
13th May, 2016. On the basis of the board application filed by
accused No.1 without the signature of the advocate, the learned
District Judge had advanced the case from 13th May to 11th
May, 2016. The Advocate for respondent No.1 also put his
signature on the order sheet pertaining to Criminal Revision
Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016. On the basis of this affidavit,
the Principal District and Sessions Judge, has permitted the
petitioner to withdraw Criminal Revision Petitions.
91. It is to be observed that for withdrawal of criminal
revision petitions filed by accused No.1, the affidavits were not
required. However, the revision petitioner/accused No.1 has
filed affidavits as per Exhibits P11 & P12. The copies of the
affidavits also served to the other side on the same day i.e. on
11th May, 2016. The respondent/complainant PW1, has not
taken legal action before the Principal District and Sessions
Judge in Criminal Revision Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016 on
the averments made in the affidavits by the accused No.1
under Section 195 read with 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
– 119 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
The complainant/PW1 has lodged complaint as per Exhibit P1
on 12th June, 2017 and same was registered in Crime No.44 of
2017. Though PW1 has knowledge as to the filing affidavits
before XI Additional District and Sessions Judge in Criminal
Revision Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016 till 12th February, 2017
i.e., for about nine months one day, he has not taken any
action. In Exhibit P71 First Information Report, Column 3(c)
pertaining to “Delay”, in First Information Report is left blank.
92. Another complaint which is registered in Crime No.45 of
2017 on the basis of complaint filed by PW1, FIR is marked at
Exhibit P72 in which the Column “Delay” has been left blank. In
this regard it is relevant to mention here as to the statement of
accused No.1 under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure
recorded by the trial Court on 31st May, 2014 wherein, she has
stated as under:
“Herein I, Mrs B.V Sindhu the accused no.1 of this
case respectfully submits as Under;
I have not committed any acts tending as offences
those charge against me in the case. I humbly and
helplessly state that I have been made as a scapegoat
and involved in this case with false allegations. I have
never committed any such alleged acts of causing
– 120 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024fabrication of false evidence, Cheating, forgery etc and
also never file the false cases. Heavy injustice has been
caused to me by arraying me as accused in the case.
There are several circumstances and documentary
evidence already involved in the case showing me as
innocent. Hence this statement may kindly be treated as
my say at this stage in part and also that the application
is being filed on my behalf for recall of PW-6, PW-7 and
PW-10 for the purpose of cross Examination by my new
council.
Hence, I respectfully pray before this Hon’ble Court
to treat this as my part statement and may be permitted
to submit my further statement by referring the
documents and entire evidence of this case. As such I
again pray before this Hon’ble court to grant some time to
place my further statement.”
93. Accused No.1 also filed statement under Section 233(2)
of Code of Criminal Procedure in which she has stated as under:
“Herein I, the accused No.1 – Mrs. Sindhu B.V. submits
my written statement is as under;
1] I have already submitted my statement during
examination U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. by this Hon’ble Court.
The same came to be placed on record.
2] I respectfully submit that the complaints lodged by me
in M.M.P.S. Cr. Nos. 286/14, 19/15 & 26/15 are based on
the true facts. My statements recorded by police during
– 121 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024investigation of those cases are given by me and those
reveal the true facts. Further, my statement recorded in
Criminal Misc. No. 366/14 consequent to M.M.P.S. Cr.
Nos. 286/14 by the Magistrate U/s. 164 of Cr.P.C. is also
based on the real facts. The police did not investigate into
the matter and the B false reports came to be submitted
in all those cases as I learnt that they come under the
influence and high handedness of the complainant- Mr.
T.B. Majjigi. Further, the said B reports came to be
accepted by the Magistrate Court. Hence, I have
challenged the acceptance of the said B reports in revision
before the court of Hon’ble XI Adl. Sessions Judge,
Belagavi.
3] I respectfully submit on the incident took place on 13-
11-2014 which is the subject matter of M.M.P.S. Cr. Nos.
286/14. During the enquiry in Women Cell regarding the
said incident, I had sought for the documents, call records
etc. However, the same were not supplied to me. On
enquiry as well as on the documents produced regarding
the call records as well as location mapping etc., I
enquired with the BSNL office and got revealed that the
details of call records and details supplied in the
prescribed HTM format and that the details in excel sheets
must have been manipulated and they have enclosed
prescribed format also etc. Since it is noted that the said
call details have been manipulated, the call made to me
by PW-6- Mr. Vinod Karur on 13-11-2014 at about 1 pm
is not appearing in the said call details. As such, the
enquiry by the Women Cell only based on call details is
not correct and proper.
– 122 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 20244] During February 2016, I had been transferred and
started working in Gulbarga. In March 2016, my husband-
Mr. Shivaram Revankar who is also working as Junior
Engineer in HESCOM was suspended due to false
allegations. My husband- Mr. Shivaram Revankar was
working in Vaibhav Nagar Section at Belagavi at that
time. During May 2016, I was pregnant and suffering due
to sever hot in Gulbarga. At that time, the complainant-
Mr. Majjigi and his men asked me to withdraw the said
Rev. Petition and promised me of getting revoke the
suspension of my husband and also arrange to transfer
me from Gulbarga to the place nearby my native. The
said affidavits are prepared on the instance of Mr. Majjigi
and I was made to present those affidavits in the revision
court personally without representation of my advocate
that too taking the case on board in advance without any
reason. I never intended to submit such affidavits before
the revision court willingly. The advocate who identified
me in the said affidavits was also not known to me and I
never acquainted with him.
5] I have never submitted the falsehood before the courts
of law and never intended to foist the false cases against
Mr. Majjigi and never stated the falsehood as evidence in
the courts against him. I have not committed any acts of
cheating, forgery etc. I have never colluded with the
other accused and at no point of time made any
conspiracy against Mr. Majjigi. In the present case, the
police never made my enquiry regarding the documents
produced by the complainant.
– 123 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 20246] I am submitting the suspension order of my husband-
Mr. Shivaram Revankar and also the true copy of
discharge summary of hospital dtd: 09-10-2016 along
with this statement for the perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
7] All the allegations made against me in this case are
totally false and apparently appear to be improbable.
Therefore, by considering my statement, evidence
and documents, I pray before this Hon’ble Court to grant
me the acquittal of charges framed against me, in the
interest of justice.”
94. Along with the application, accused No.1 also produced
letter issued by BSNL Authorities, Belagavi as reply to her letter
dated 08th May, 2015 and the information regarding Meftal
tablets generated from Google. Neither PW1 nor State made
any objection to the said application.
95. The JMFC-II Court, Belagavi, has accepted the ‘B’
reports pertaining to Crime No.286 of 2014 and 19 of 2015 on
11th January, 2016 and the ‘B’ report filed pertaining to Crime
No.26 of 2015 on 08th January, 2016. Even after lapse of more
than a year from the date of acceptance of the ‘B’ report,
complainant-PW1 has not lodged any complaint. The delay in
filing the complaint has not been explained by PW1. Even the
– 124 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
Investigating officer has not explained anything as to delay in
filing the complaint. Only after filing the affidavits for
withdrawal of Criminal Revision Petitions No.54 & 55 of 2016 by
accused No.1, after lapse of nine months one day, the
complainant PW1 has lodged complaint as per Exhibit P1. This
delay in filing the complaint will create reasonable doubt as to
whether accused No.1 has voluntarily filed said affidavits-
Exhibits P11 & P12 or not and only at the instance of PW1, she
might have filed the affidavits which are not at all required to
withdraw the revision petitions. Just a memo was sufficient to
withdraw revision petitions. Instead of that the accused No.1
has filed detailed affidavits, which was unnecessary. Exhibits
P11 & P12 was filed on 10th May 2016, before the XI Additional
District and Sessions Judge.
96. Further, copy of the order dated 30th June, 2016,
whereby General Manager, HESCOM suspending Shivaram
Revankar, Junior Engineer working in HESCOM Belagavi is also
produced. The said Shivaram Revankar is the husband of
accused No.1. He was suspended due to dereliction of duty. It
is also not in dispute that by that time accused No.1 was
pregnant and suffering due to severe hot at Kalaburagi. It is
– 125 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
stated in the application filed under Section 233(2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure that the complainant-T.B. Majjagi asked
accused No.1 to withdraw Criminal Revision Petitions with a
promise of getting revocation of suspension of her husband-
Shivaram Revankar, as also, she be transferred from Kalaburagi
to a place nearer to her native place. The copy of the order
dated 02nd February, 2017 passed by Assistant Executive
Engineer, Bailhongal, reveals that, Shivaram Revankar has
been reinstated to his post and he has reported to duty. The
copy of discharge summary produced by accused No.1 issued
by Kamakshi Hospital at Kalaburagi dated 3rd October, 2016,
reveals that accused No.1 was suffering from history of nine
months amenorrhea. These documents and contents of the
application filed under Section 233(2) of Code of Criminal
Procedure reveal the possibilities of complainant-PW1
influencing accused No.1 as to revocation of suspension of her
husband and she getting transferred from Kalaburagi to a place
nearby to her native place and under such circumstances she
might have filed affidavits Exhibits P11 and P12, though there is
no need to file any affidavit to withdraw a criminal revision
petition.
– 126 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
97. Accused No.1 produced certified copy of order sheet
pertaining to PCR No.68 of 2022 marked as Exhibit D16, which
reveals that the same is filed seeking to recall the order of
acceptance of ‘B’ report filed by Malmaruti Police, Belagavi and
to maintain complaint filed by accused No.1. The said
statement of accused No.1 recorded in PCR No.68 of 22 is
marked at Exhibit D17. The statement of one Sunil B.Venkatesh
examined as DW2, is marked Exhibit D18. Sworn statement of
Smt. Drakshayini N Nesargi examined as DW3, is marked as
Exhibit D19. Copy of sworn statement of PW2-Amit Pujari is
marked as Exhibit D20, and the Sworn statement of Shekhar
Dayanand Kamble, is marked as Exhibit D21. Copy of the
complaint is marked at Exhibit D22.
98. Copy of the order sheet pertaining to Original Suit No.1
of 2023 filed by B.V. Sindhu against PWs.1, 3 & 6 is produced.
The same is filed seeking:
“A) to declare that the kannada computer types write-
up on whiter paper claiming to be an affidavit of the
plaintiff before the notary Shri Shripad kallimani of
Belagavi has been obtained by the defendants No. 1 to 4
collusively by practicing fraud and misrepresentation of
– 127 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
the plaintiff and also on the Notary, and hence, is
fraudulent void ab-initio.
B) To declare that the facts and statements computer
typed in the alleged affidavit are false, concocted and are
not deposed by the plaintiff on oath and are not verified
before the Notary and it is the resultant outcome of
trickery and cheating by the defendants to enable the
defendant No.1 to initiate criminal proceedings
thereafter.
C)To declare that the defendants No.1 to 4 are jointly
and severally liable for the damages resulting from their
common object of bringing the false affidavit and its false
contents fraudulently in existence for its illegal
operations for hatching further criminal proceeding
against plaintiff.
D) To award damages and compensation payable jointly
and severally on the following Head of Claim.
i) Towards mental agony, pain and physical
suffering in her regular routine life, causing set-
back in rendering the happy routine service as
public servant in the office and also as family
member – Rs.2,00,000/-
ii) Towards court fees, legal fees for defending the
cases of malicious prosecution by the defendants
No.1 Rs 2,00,000/-
iii) Towards the personal expenses Court and also
in the II J.M.F.C Court Belagavi. Rs.1,50,000/-
iv) Loss of Leave, Loss of work Promotion and
Loss of Timely Increments stopped by her
Employer caused for her repeated absence from
– 128 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
the duties of an Assistant Engineer in CESCOM
Mysuru,Rs.50,000/-
v) operating the impugned Affidavit dated 10-03-
2016 manipulated before Shri Shripad Kallimani,
Notary Belagavi in the collateral proceedings.
E) Cost of the suit and any other relief as deemed fit and
proper by the Hon’ble Court be awarded.”
99. The suit was filed on 02nd January 2023 and order
sheet reveals that case was posted on 25th November, 2023.
Copy of the complaint pertaining to Original Suit No.1 of 2023,
verifying affidavit list of documents are also produced.
Statement of objections of the plaintiff to the interim
application filed by D1-T.B. Majjagi, copy of the notice issued to
Smt. Mandakini Appugol, Advocate, who is the relative of T.B.
Majjagi; notice issued to Sri Manjunath Yelaburgi and the copy
of reply received from Sri Manjunath Yelagurgi, Advocate; and
the copy of legal notice to Sri Kalakappa Soodi, are all produced.
100. Copy of order sheet pertaining to PCR No.77 of 2022
pending on the file of JMFC-II Court, Belagavi Court Exhibit D24
to take cognizance against T.B. Majjagi and copy of complaint
filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure against
T.B. Majjagi and others, Copy of the endorsement issued by the
concerned police Exhibit D25, copy of the complaint filed by
– 129 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
T.B. Majjagi and others against B.V. Sindhu and others for the
offence punishable under Sections 494, 500 and 149 Indian
Penal Code, deposition copy of T.B. Majjagi in CC No.803 of
2017 and copy of PCR No.88 of 2017, order sheet pertaining to
CC No.803 of 2017 and other Exhibits, are produced.
101. We have also perused Exhibit P81 contempt petition
filed against accused No.1 in CCC No.100002 of 2023 and
Exhibit P52 the Criminal Revision Petition No.196 of 2022 filed
by accused No.1, Exhibit P53 copy of criminal revision petition
No.195 of 2022, Exhibit P54 document pertaining to PCR No.70
of 2022 filed by accused No.1, Exhibit P55 document pertaining
to PCR No.69 of 2022, Exhibit P56 document pertaining to PCR
No.68 of 2022 filed by accused No.1. A careful scrutiny of the
documents filed by both the parties as well as the complaints
filed by Accused No.1 in crime No.286 of 2014, 19 of 2015 and
26 of 2015 reveals that still the Accused No.1-B. V. Sindhu is
questioning the cancellation of affidavits filed before the
Principal District and Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision
Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016.
– 130 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
102. For the aforesaid reasons, it appears that, the said
affidavits Exhibits P11 and P12 are filed by accused No.1 under
inducement and promise made by the PW1 and the same is not
admissible under Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act. The
conduct of parties, mode of filing advance application before the
XI Additional District and Sessions Judge Court without
identification by concerned advocate and the affidavits filed
without setting forth the cause-title, the statement of objections
filed by accused No.1 against ‘B’ final reports by the concerned
Investigating officer and revocation of suspension of Shivaram
Revankar husband of accused No.1 and the transfer of accused
No.1 from Gulbarga to a place nearer to her native place, delay
in filing the complaint by PW1, that too only after filing of the
affidavits by the accused No.1 before the revision Court as per
Exhibits P11 and P12 after lapse of nine months one day, will
create reasonable doubt as to the voluntariness of accused No.1
in filing affidavits, Exhibits P11 & P12. No prudent person will
file these types of affidavits which are not required to withdraw
the revision petitions. Accused No.1, being an educated lady,
being fed up with the suspension of her husband and so also of
her transfer to Gulbarga and with regard to filing of ‘B’ reports
– 131 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
by the jurisdictional police, and also with an intention to settle
the issue, might have filed affidavits Exhibits P11 and P12.
Taking advantage of these affidavits, after lapse of more than
nine months one day after disposal of criminal revision
petitions, PW1 has lodged complaint without explaining the
delay in filing the complaint.
103. After filing these affidavits before the Revision Court,
the learned Sessions Judge has not applied his judicious mind in
examining the contents/averments of affidavit. Without
application of mind, on the basis of affidavits, the Revisional
Court has permitted the accused No.1 to withdraw criminal
revision petitions. When the accused No.1 has not been
represented by her Counsel, at least the Revisional Court could
have explained the consequences of filing these types of
affidavits and could have insisted the Revision Petitioner to
keep the presence of counsel to ascertain that averments made
in the affidavits is on own volition or under
inducement/threat/duress. Additionally, Exhibits P11 and P12
are not identified by the advocate who has appeared on behalf
of revision petitioner.
– 132 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
104. The investigating officer has not investigated and
examined as to under what circumstance the accused No.1 has
filed affidavits Exhibits P11 and P12 before the revision Court.
Why the advocate for accused No.1 has not moved the Board
application; why the advocate for accused No.1 has not
identified the signature of accused No.1 on Exhibits P11 and
P12; who has prepared and at whose instance these affidavits
have been prepared; whether the Notary who has given oath to
the deponent has read over and explained the averments made
in the affidavit to the deponent; why these affidavits were filed
without setting forth the cause-title; after filing of affidavits,
why PW1 has not initiated any legal action against accused
No.1 before the Revisional Court as the accused No.1 has
confessed with respect to filing multiple complaints by her on
different dates?
105. In view of Section 4 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, all the offence under the Indian Penal Code 1860 (45 of
1860) shall be investigated, enquired into, tried and otherwise
dealt with according to the provisions of Code of Criminal
Procedure and in view of sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, all offences under any other law shall be
– 133 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
investigated, enquired into, tried otherwise dealt with according
to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the
time being in force, regulating the matter or place of
investigating, enquiring into, trying or otherwise dealt with such
offence. In the case on hand, the Investigating officer has not
investigated the matter in detail. Neither PW1, nor the
investigating officer has deposed as to the aforesaid lapses. In
addition to this, the charge-sheet submitted by the
Investigating officer reveals that he has not arrested accused
No.1. He has not even issued notice as required under Section
41(A) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 to interrogate the
accused No.1. Why the Investigating officer has not arrested
accused No.1 for interrogation and why the investigating officer
has not examined advocate who identified the deponent, who
affixed her signature on Exhibits P11 and P12, why the
investigating officer has not examined the notary who has given
oath to the accused No.1, under which circumstance the
accused No.1 has filed these affidavits, reasons for filing these
affidavits before the revision Court though these type of
affidavits were not required for withdrawal of revision petitions,
all these aspects have not been explained by the investigating
– 134 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
officer. Without assigning any reasons, without taking any legal
steps to arrest her, the Investigating officer has simply sought
for issuance of warrant to accused No.1. Had the Investigating
officer interrogated the accused and collected the information
as to under what circumstance she has filed these types of
affidavits, then the accused No.1 would have explained as to
the compelling circumstances to file these affidavits before the
revision Court and then the investigating officer would have got
to know the truth behind filing these affidavits. Without
conducting proper investigation, without examining accused
No.1, without examining necessary material witnesses to prove
the guilt of the accused, without ascertaining the fact as to
whether accused No.1 has voluntarily, so also, being aware of
the legal consequences of filing these type of affidavits, filed
such affidavits before the Court. The Investigating officer has
filed charge-sheet against accused No.1 only on the basis of
affidavits Exhibits P11 and P12 without proper investigation,
which is not sustainable in law.
106. It is an admitted fact that the investigating officer has
submitted the charge-sheet dated 12th February, 2017 in crime
No.44, 45 and 46 of 2017, only against accused no.1. In the
– 135 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
charge sheets in these crimes, Column 13, specifically reveals
that, except accused No.1, other accused 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 are not charge-
sheeted. Why the names of these accused were given up in the
charge-sheet, has not been explained. After filing of charge-
sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate, the case was
registered in CC No.256 of 2019 against accused No.1-B.V.
Sindhu. The case was registered on 16th April 2014 and
summons was issued to accused No.1 and she appeared
through her Counsel on 29th April 2019 by filing application and
Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure. On the same day
T.B. Majjagi-PW1 has appeared through his Counsel by filing
application under Section 301(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure
to allow the Counsel of complainant to assist the prosecution.
The same was allowed by JMFC-II Court, Belagavi on the same
day i.e. 29th April 2019. Though the PW1 had appeared before
JMFC-II Court, Belagavi before committal of this case, he has
not filed any objection as to dropping of accused 2 to 10 from
– 136 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
the charge-sheet. After committal, case was registered in SC
No.262 of 2019 on 19th August, 2019. Even prosecution has
not filed any application to implead accused 2 to 13 before
framing of charges. However, after framing of charges and
examination of PW1 & PW2, prosecution has filed application
under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the same
was allowed by the trial Court permitting to array them as
accused 2 to 13 to face trial along with accused No.1 and
thereafter, additional charges against accused No.1 and charges
against other accused were framed and read over and
explained to them. PW1 has not whispered anything in his
evidence as to why he has not filed any objection for dropping
accused 2 to 10 in the charge-sheet. He has not taken any legal
steps before the committal Court. Even after committal, till
recording the evidence of PW1 and PW2, in part, the
prosecution has not taken any steps to file application under
Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution
has filed application under Section 319 of Code of Criminal
Procedure to implead other accused. In Exhibit P1-complaint,
the PW1 has shown only accused 1 to 10. He has not shown
the name of other two accused namely A5 and A10. Why the
– 137 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
other accused are not shown in the complaint who are shown in
the impleading applications under Section 319 of CRPC, has not
been explained by the prosecution.
107. It is the case of the prosecution that accused 2 to 13,
being the members of KPTCL Employees Union (659), in
collusion with accused No.1, who was then working as Assistant
Engineer (Technical), being enraged by PW1-T.B. Majjagi had
transferred accused No.1 from Rural Sub-Division (IO & M),
Belagavi, 02nd, 05th and 08th November, 2014, at 6.00 pm in
the parking place of HESCOM Office, Nehru Nagar, Belagavi,
entered into criminal conspiracy against PW1 to procure
conviction for offence punishable with imprisonment for life and
on the same day, in collusion with other accused, had filed false
complaint against PW1 before the superiors stating that he had
mentally harassed accused No.1 and created letter dated 05th
December, 2014 in the name of KPTCL Employees Union (659),
HESCOM, Hubli, with an intention to procure conviction for
imprisonment of life, the accused 2 to 13 in collusion with
accused No.1, in prosecution of above common object, in the
name of KPTCL Employees Union (659) HESCOM, Hubli
fabricated and caused registration of false cases against PW1 in
– 138 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
Malmaruti Police Station in Crime No.286 of 2014, 19 of 2015
and 26 of 2015 as admitted by accused No.1 in her affidavits
Exhibits P11 & P12 filed in Criminal Revision Petitions No.54 and
55 of 2016 on the file of Court of Sessions, and by instituting
such criminal revision petitions against PW1, CW6 and deceased
M T Thakkalaki with an intention to tarnish their reputation in
the society and further on the abovesaid date, place and time,
the accused in collusion with accused No.1 in prosecution of
above with common object, committed the offences punishable
under Sections 120B, 195, 211, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with
Section 149 Indian Penal Code. To substantiate the same, the
prosecution has adduced oral evidence and also produced
document Exhibit P28 Official Memorandum issued on 05th
February, 2016 by the General Secretary, KPTCL Employees
Union stating that Y.M. Nittur was Vice-President of KPTCL
Employees Union and Nataji Patil was not holding the post of
Vice-President as on 05th December, 2014 and Show-cause
notice Exhibit P29 issued by CEE to PW1 dated 20th January,
2015, and Exhibit P30 e-Mail from Women Grievance Redressal
Committee dated 13th May, 2015 regarding enquiry of HESCOM,
where some of the other accused were present along with
– 139 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
accused No.1 at the time of enquiry on 05th April, 2015 and
unnecessary involvement of others in enquiry and their
attendance was sought by the Enquiry Officer. Exhibits P4, P6
and P8 are ‘B’ reports in Crime No.286/2014, 19/2015 and
26/2015 respectively. Exhibit P59-Letter dated: 05.12.2014 of
Nataji Patil impersonating himself has Vice-President of KPTCL
Employees Union, HESCOM, Hubli and others addressing letter
to SEE, HESCOM, Hubli to take action on PW1, PW2 and
another; Exhibit P60-Women’s Grievance Redressal Committee
Report (Original copy), Exhibit P61- Letter dated: 05.12.2014 of
Nataji Patil impersonating himself has Vice-President of KPTCL
Employees Union, HESCOM, Hubli and other accused addressed
to Managing Director, HESCOM, Hubli to take action on PWs1
and 2 and another; Exhibit P62-Confidential Letter dated:
10.12.2024 of SE, addressed to General Manager, HRD,
HESCOM to take action on PW1 and 2 and another; Exhibit P63-
Letter dated: 11.12.2024 by SEE to GM, HESCOM with regard
to non-consideration of his previous Confidential Letter dated:
10.12.2024 as Nataji Patil was not holding the post of Vice-
President of Union on 05.12.2014; Exhibit P64-Official
Memorandum issued on 15.02.2016 by General Secretary,
– 140 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
KPTCL Employees Union regarding Y.M. Nittur was the Vice-
President of the Union and Nataji Patil was not holding post of
Vice-President as on 05.12.2014 and Exhibit P65-Documents in
respect of letter dated 05.12.2014 of Nataji Patil impersonating
himself as Vice-President of KPTCL Employees Union, HESCOM,
Hubli and other accused addressing letter to MD, HESCOM,
Hubli to take action on PWs1, 2 and another.
108. On the contrary, the accused have produced Exhibit
D32 letter of KPTCL Association (659) Bengaluru. The same is
the letter issued by the President, KPTCL Employees Association
(659), Bangalore-560009, which reads as under:
“PÀ«¥Àæ¤ £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ (659)gÀ ¨ÉʯÁ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½ 11 (C) gÀ°è
¤ÃrgÀĪÀ C¢üPÁgÀzÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29.01.2016 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ PÉÃAzÀæ
PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«Äw ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ ¤tðAiÀÄzÀAvÉ, ²æà ªÉÊ.JA.
¤lÆÖgÀ, G¥ÁzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ, ºÉ¸ÁÌAgÀªÀgÀ ªÀAiÉÆäªÀÈwÛ¬ÄAzÀ vÉgÀªÁzÀ eÁUÀPÉÌ
²æà £ÁxÁf ¦ ¥Ánïï, ¸ÀAWÀl£Á PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« ªÀÈvÀÛgÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß
ºÀħâ½î PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ G¥ÁzsÀåPÀëgÀ£ÁßV 2014-17£Éà ¸Á°£À G½zÀ CªÀ¢üUÉ
vÀPÀët¢AzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.”
109. The said letter is dated 09th October, 2014 vide No.
ka.vi.pra.ni.nou.sa.529/2014-15. To substantiate this, DW1-M.
Nagaraj, who has issued this Exhibit P32, is also examined who
has deposed in his evidence as to the issuance of Official
Memorandum, Exhibit D32.
– 141 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
110. Accused No.2-Nataji P Patil, has clearly stated in his
examination-in-chief that on 05th December, 2015 he was the
Vice President of KPTCL Employees Union. He has also filed
detailed statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, in which it is stated as under:
“zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÀiÁ ¸ÀA»vÀ PÀ®A 313gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆæ £ÀA.2
gÀªÀgÀ °TvÀ ºÉýPÉ:
£Á£ÀÄ £ÁxÁf ¦ÃgÁf ¥Ánî, ¤ªÀÈvï ¯ÉÊ£ï-ªÀÄ£ï, ºÉ¸ÁÌA
¨É¼ÀUÁ«, F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ UËgÀªÁ¤évÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆqÀĪÀ °TvÀ
ºÉýPÉ K£ÉAzÀgÉ:
1] F ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è £À£ÀߣÀÄß DgÉÆæ £ÀA.2 JAzÀÄ ¥ÀgÀUÀt¹, £À£Àß
ªÉÄÃ¯É zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÀiÁ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 319 gÀ PɼÀUÀqÉ DzÉñÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ F
¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀqɸÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
2] £Á£ÀÄ 7£Éà vÀgÀUÀw ªÀgÉUÉ ªÀÄgÁpAiÀÄ°è ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ ªÀiÁr ªÉÆzÀ®Ä
PÉ.E.©.AiÀÄ°è 1983 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è ¸À.¯ÉÊ£ï-ªÉÄ£ï JAzÀÄ
£ÉêÀÄPÀUÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ºÉ¸ÁÌA JAzÀÄ
«¨sÁUÀªÁV £À£Àß PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
3] £Á£ÀÄ 2011 jAzÀ 2014 £Éà CªÀ¢üUÉ £ÀqÉzÀ PÉ.¦.n.¹.J¯ï.
JA¥Áè¬ÄÃeï ¸ÀAWÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è UÉzÀÄÝ PÉÃA¢æAiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðPÁj
¸ÀzÀ¸Àå£ÁV PÉÃAzÀæzÀ ¸ÀAWÀl£Á ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¨É¼ÀUÁ« ªÀÈvÀÛzÀ°è
¸ÀAWÀl£É PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð JAzÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÀUÉÆAqÀÄ PÁAiÀÄ𠤪Àð»¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
ªÀÄÄAzÉ 2014 jAzÀ 2017 £Éà ¸Á°£À CªÀ¢üUÉ £ÀqÉzÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀÄ£À:
DAiÉÄÌUÉÆAqÀÄ PÉÃAzÀæ ¸ÀAWÀl£Á ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀzÀAvÉ ¨É¼ÀUÁ«
ªÀ®AiÀÄzÀ°è G¥ÁzÀåPÀë£ÉAzÀÄ PÁAiÀÄ𠤪Àð»¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
4] F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀAZÀÄ CxÀªÁ
¥ÀæZÉÆÃzÀ£Á PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æêÀÄw ¹AzsÀÆ EªÀgÀ
eÉÆvÉUÀÆr ªÀÄdÓVAiÀĪÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrzÉÝÃ£É CAvÁ
– 142 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024D¥ÁzÀ£ÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÁîVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥Áæ.¸Á.1 ªÀÄdÓVAiÀĪÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ
C£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁUÀĪÀAvÉ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Àȶֹ £ÀªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¸ÁQë
£ÀÄr¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
5] ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ UËgÀªÀ¥ÀƪÀðPÀªÁV ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, £Á£ÀÄ
JAzÉA¢UÀÆ ¥Áæ.¸Á.£ÀA.1 EªÀgÀ PÉÊPɼÀUÉ £ÉÃgÀªÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè.
CªÀgÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ «¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉUÉƼÀî®Ä CxÀªÁ CªÀgÀ UËgÀªÀPÉÌ ºÁUÀÆ
WÀ£ÀvÉUÉ zsÀPÉÌ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ²æêÀÄw ¹AzsÀÆ EªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ PÀÆr
C¥À¥ÀæZÁgÀ ªÀiÁrCªÀgÀ£ÀÄß CªÀiÁ£ÀvïUÉƽ¸À®Ä C¢üPÁgÀ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß°è
EgÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè ºÁUÀÆ CzÉÃjÃw D¥ÁzÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ J¯Áè «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ
¸ÀļÁîVgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. ²æà ªÀÄdÓV EªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉUÀ¼À°è £ÀqÉzÀ ªÉÊgÀvÀézÀ
¨sÁªÀ£É ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸Àà¢ð¹zÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À ªÀiÁvÀÄ PÉý
£À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÝ ¹mÁÖV £À£ÀߣÀÄß F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¹®ÄQ¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
6] EªÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÀ¼ÀÄ £ÉÆÃAzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ
vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁr ºÁUÀÆ UËgÀªÁ¤évÀ GZÀÑ-
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ EªÀgÀ DzÉñÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄÆgÀÄ
¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè. £Á£ÀÄ
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà SÉÆnÖ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Àȶֹ ²æÃAiÀÄvÀ ªÀÄdÓVAiÀÄgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ
JA¢UÀÆ J°èAiÀÄÆ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè. ºÁUÉ SÉÆnÖ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
¸ÀȶֹgÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ C¥ÁzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀļÁîVgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. F ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ
ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀ ¥Àr¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ
«£ÀAw¥ÀƪÀðPÀªÁV ¥Áæyð¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, F ªÉÄÃ¯É w½¹zÀ
¸ÀAUÀwUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ £Á£ÀÄ ¤gÀ¥ÀgÁ¢ü JAzÀÄ
ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÝjAzÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß F ¥ÀæPÀgÀt¢AzÀ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß
ªÀÄÄQÛUÉƽ¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä°è «£ÀAw¸À¯ÁVzÉ.”
111. He has also produced documents along with his
statement of objections. Exhibit P19 is the requisition submitted
by Nataji P Patel to the Managing Director, HESCOM, Hubli to
suspend the officer/employee who has attempted to outrage
– 143 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
the modesty of the woman in the Department. Exhibit P28 is
the official memorandum issued by General Secretary, KPTCL
Employees Union (659), Bangalore, in which it is stated as
under:
“PÀ«¥Àæ¤ £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ (659)gÀ ¨ÉʯÁ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½ 11 (C) gÀ°è
¤ÃrgÀĪÀ C¢üPÁgÀzÀAvÉ ²æà £ÁxÁf ¦ ¥Ánïï, ªÀiÁUÀðzÁ¼ÀÄ,
ªÀĺÁAvÉñÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ±ÁSÉ, £ÀUÀgÀ G¥À«¨sÁUÀ-3, ºÉ¸ÁÌA, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« £ÀUÀgÀ
«¨sÁUÀ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÀħâ½î PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ G¥ÁzsÀåPÀëgÀ£ÁßV 2014-17£ÉÃ
CªÀ¢üUÉ vÀPÀët¢AzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.”
112. The prosecution has relied upon Exhibit P28, which,
according to PW1, was issued by one Lakshmipathi. The said
Lakshmipathi has been examined as PW33. However, a perusal
of his deposition reveals that he has not deposed anything
regarding the issuance of Exhibit P28. Instead, he has referred
to Exhibit P64 in his evidence. Notably, both Exhibits P28 and
P64 refer to the same document. Furthermore, Exhibit P80
contains the list of Central Executive Committee (CEC)
Members of the KPTCL Employees Union for the term 2014-
2017. At Sl.Nos.17 to 24, individuals such as Umeshappa K.S.,
Banakar G.H., Revanasiddappa Hagaragi, Prabhakar A.M., Y.M.
Nittur, V.M. Mudukannanavar, Umesh A., and Sridhar H.L. are
named as Vice Presidents representing BESCOM, CESC,
– 144 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
GESCOM, Ballari, HESCOM, and MESCOM, respectively. At serial
number 44, the name of Nataji Patil appears as the Organising
Secretary of the Belagavi Circle. During cross-examination,
PW1 has categorically admitted that, under the by-laws of the
Association, each company is required to have a President and
that the President is vested with the authority to appoint Vice
Presidents.
113. DW1-M. Nagaraju, who served as the Executive
President of the KPTCL Employees Union between 2011-2016,
has clearly deposed that Accused No.2 held the post of Vice
President since 2014. His oral testimony and the contents of
Exhibit D32 directly contradict the documents relied upon by
the prosecution, namely Exhibits P14 and P28. Further, PW13
Lakshmipathi, who served as the General Secretary, has
admitted that the President was empowered to appoint Vice
Presidents. In line with this authority, DW1 has issued the
official memorandum marked as Exhibit P32. The prosecution
has not produced any credible material to discredit either the
contents of Exhibit P32 or the evidence of DW1. In light of the
documentary evidence demonstrating that Accused No.2 was
indeed the Vice President of the KPTCL Employees Union at the
– 145 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
relevant time, the prosecution’s allegation of impersonation,
forgery, or misrepresentation loses all foundation.
114. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Accused
No.2 was not the Vice President at the relevant time, PW1 has
admitted in his evidence that Accused No.2 held the position of
Organising Secretary. It is well established that even an
Organising Secretary is competent to make representations on
behalf of any member or employee of the Association. There
exists no bar preventing such a person from initiating a
representation, particularly in defense of another member
allegedly subjected to departmental injustice. Moreover, PW1
has admitted that despite the complaint by Accused No.1-B.V.
Sindhu, he was promoted to the post of Superintending
Engineer, received timely increments, and continues to draw
pensionary benefits. His arrears were also cleared. PW1 further
admitted that Accused No.1 did not instruct him to take action
on the basis of Exhibit P9 and that Exhibits P14 and P19 do not
mention the names of all the accused. He categorically stated
that Accused No.1 did not instruct the preparation of those
documents, nor did she identify Accused 2 to 13 in her
complaints. According to testimony of PW1, he only suspected
– 146 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
a conspiracy involving Accused 2 to 13 after reading the
affidavits filed by Accused No.1. He also conceded that Accused
2 to 13 were stationed in different locations and that the names
of Accused Nos.5 and 10 are absent in Exhibit P14, while
Accused No.6 was not a signatory to Exhibits P14 or P19.
Similarly, the name of accused No.8 name does not appear in
the photocopy of Exhibit P9. Despite the lack of substantive
evidence, the prosecution moved an application to implead
these persons as accused, which lacks legal justification.
115. A close examination of the materials on record clearly
reveals that the charges framed against the accused under
Sections 120B, 195, 211, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with
Section 149 of the IPC were primarily based on three ‘B’ Final
Reports in Crime Nos. 286 of 2014, 19 of 2015, and 26 of 2015,
which were accepted by the learned Magistrate. The
prosecution has also relied on Exhibit P15, the report of the
Women Grievance Redressal Committee, and affidavits marked
as Exhibits P11 and P12, filed by Accused No.1 before the XI
Additional District and Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision
Petitions No.54 and 55 of 2016. However, these documents do
– 147 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
not independently establish the conspiracy alleged against
Accused 2 to 13.
116. Given that accused 2 to 13 were employees of KPTCL
posted in different locations, it was incumbent upon the
prosecution to establish how all these individuals came
together, at a specific time, place and date, to hatch a
conspiracy against PW1 and others. The prosecution has failed
to provide any material explanation or evidence in this regard.
After a thorough and critical evaluation of the evidence on
record, there is a glaring absence of cogent, consistent, and
legally admissible evidence to substantiate the charges under
Sections 195, 211, 420, 467, 468, and 120B of the IPC. The
Trial Court has not evaluated the evidence in its proper legal
context and has committed a grave error in its appreciation of
the material facts and law applicable to the case.
117. The learned counsel for the accused has further
substantiated his defense by producing documents that cast
serious doubt on the credibility of PW1. It has been
demonstrated that PW1 was not only a dominant official but
also held the post of President of the KPTCL Employees Union.
– 148 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
He was the controlling authority over Accused No.1-B.V.
Sindhu. It is brought on record that other employees, namely
Smt. Sudha and Smt. Renuka Shashikant Appugol, had also
filed complaints against PW1 alleging sexual and mental
harassment. Crime No.209/2010 was registered under Sections
506 and 509 IPC in this regard, which ended in a ‘B’ report.
The defense has also produced Exhibits D1 to D36, including
Exhibit D7-complaint filed by Suresh Kallappa Kamble against
PW1, resulting in registration of Crime No.193/2010 under
Section 3(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Though a ‘B’ report was filed (Exhibit P8), the complainant
protested the same and submitted a sworn statement (Exhibit
D9). Supporting documents such as wound certificates,
mahazars, witness statements, and the order sheet in Crime
No.193 of 2010 (Exhibit D10) show that PW1 had obtained
anticipatory bail from the III Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Belagavi. The order in Summary Case No.7 of 2011
directed registration of First Information Report against PW1 for
offences under Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC and Section
3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Additionally, Exhibits D12,
D13, and D15 are media publications alleging that PW1
– 149 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
misappropriated Rs.66.00 lakh from HESCOM, Belagavi. While
we do not render any findings on these allegations at this
stage, they bear relevance to the question of the credibility and
motive of PW1.
118. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis of the
evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has miserably
failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. The evidence adduced is neither consistent nor sufficient
to support a finding of criminal conspiracy or forgery, as
alleged. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in the affirmative,
holding that the accused are entitled to be acquitted of all
charges leveled against them.
Regarding Points 2 & 3:
119. While answering Point No.1 above, as we have held
that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused for
the alleged commission of offences, the question of enhancing
the sentence as sought for by the State as well as by the
Revision Petitioner who is complainant-PW1, does not arise.
Hence, we answer Points 2 and 3 in the negative.
– 150 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
Regarding Point No.4:
120. For discussions and reasons aforestated, we proceed
to pass the following:
1. Criminal Appeals preferred by
appellants/accused in No.100354, 100355,
100356, 100357, 100358, 100370 and 100371
of 2024 are allowed;
2. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No.100026 of
2025 preferred by the State and Criminal
Revision Petition No.100305 of 2024 preferred
by the Revision Petitioner/complainant, are
dismissed;
3. Judgment of conviction dated 25th June 2024
and order on sentence dated 27th June 2024
passed in SC No.262 of 2019 by the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, is set
aside;
4. Accused No.1 to 13 are acquitted of offences
punishable under Sections 120B, 195, 211,
– 151 –
CRL.A NO.100026/2025
C/W. CRL.A NO.100354/2024, CRL.A NO.100355/2024,
CRL.A NO.100356/2024, CRL.A NO.100357/2024,
CRL.A NO.100358/2024, CRL.A NO.100370/2024,
CRL.A NO.100371/2024, CRL.RP NO.100305 2024
420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 149 of
Indian Penal Code;
5. The fine amount if any deposited by the
accused, shall be refunded to them in
accordance with law;
6. Registry to transmit the trial Court records
along with the copy of this judgment to the
concerned Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
CT-CMU