Criminal Appeal No. 794 of 2013 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16003 CRL.A No. 794 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 794 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: 1. KUMARA S/O RAMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 2. RAMASHETTY @ BADAGAPPANA RAMANNA S/O BODAGASGETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 3. SHIVALINGA S/O RAMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 4. JAYALAKSHMI S/O RAMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka ALL ARE R/O MUNDAGADORE VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438 (BY SRI. K.M. SANATH KUMARA, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARAKRE POLICE SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 415 (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) …RESPONDENT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16003 CRL.A No. 794 of 2013 THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2013 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. & S.J., MANDYA IN SPL.C.C.NO.63/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504,323,324 R/W 34 OF IPC AND 3(1)(10), 3(1)(5) AND 3(1)(11) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.07.2013 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Special Case No.63/2012. 2. The brief and relevant facts leading upto this appeal are as under: That, accused were charge sheeted by the Deputy
Legal Reasoning
Superintendent of Police, Srirangapatna Sub-Division for the offences punishable under Section 323, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(v)(x) and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16003 CRL.A No. 794 of 2013 (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (in short ' the Act'). 3. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 06.06.2012, at 8.30 am in the morning hours, when the wife of the complainant went near the public borewell, situated near his house to fetch the water, at that time, accused Kumar told her that, after he getting the water, the other people should take the water and abused them by taking their caste name as `Madiga'. When he took the name of the caste, it was told to him not to speak about the caste. Being enraged by the words of complainant's wife, accused Kumara abused her in filthy language by taking the caste as`Madiga' and he said that, Madiga caste people are eating cattle flesh, dragged her and made her to fall on the ground and treaded her. Even complainant's wife was assaulted by other accused persons and they abused her in filthy language. Accused nos.2 and 3 joined accused No.1. Accused No.4 abused her in a filthy language. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16003 CRL.A No. 794 of 2013 4. It is stated that, on hearing the galata, complainant came out of the house and enquired and at that time, accused no.1 took a wooden log and assaulted him on his right leg and caused him pain. At that time, one Murugesh, Bannari Kumara and Hamsa came there and rescued the complainant from the clutches of accused. Thereafter, his wife was taken to hospital and she took the treatment as out-patient. Thereafter, he discussed the said issue with community people and lodged a complaint against accused persons on 07.06.2012 which was registered by the police and criminal law was set in motion. On completion of investigation, the IO has filed charge sheet against accused for the aforesaid offences. 5. The learned Special Court, on hearing both the side, framed charges as stood prior to amendment to the Act against accused persons for the aforesaid offences for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses (PWs. 1 to 8), got marked 8 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16003 CRL.A No. 794 of 2013 documents (Exs.P1 to P8) and also got marked MO No.1, and closed prosecution evidence. Thereafter, accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C so as to enable them to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. They denied their complicity in the crime and did not choose to lead evidence on their behalf. 7. Learned trial Court on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of evidence found the accused guilty of committing the offence under Sections 323, 324, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC, so also Section 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(v)(x)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act, and sentenced them as under: "1. zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQAiÀiÁ ¸ÀA»vÉ «¢ü 235(2) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ 1 jAzÀ 4£Éà DgÉÆæUÀ½UÉ ¨sÁ.zÀA.¸ÀA. «¢ü 504 eÉÆvÉ ªÁZÀPÀ «¢ü 34 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ C¥ÀgÁzsÀPÁÌV vÀ¯Á MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À PÀpt ¸ÉgɪÀÄ£É ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ²PÉë, vÀ¯Á gÀÆ.500/- zÀAqÀ, zÀAqÀ PÉÆqÀ®Ä vÀ¦àzÀgÉ 6 ¢ªÀ¸ÀUÀ¼À PÀpt ¸ÉgɪÀÄ£É ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ²PÉë C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 2. ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀAUÀqÀUÀ¼À (zËdð£Àå vÀqÉ) C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1989, «¢ü 3 G¥À«¢ü (1)(10) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ EgÀĪÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀPÁÌV 1 jAzÀ 4£Éà DgÉÆæUÀ½UÉ, vÀ¯Á 6 wAUÀ¼À PÀpt ¸ÉgɪÀÄ£É - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16003 CRL.A No. 794 of 2013 ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ²PÉë, vÀ¯Á gÀÆ.1,000/- zÀAqÀ, zÀAqÀ PÉÆqÀ®Ä vÀ¦àzÀgÉ 1 wAUÀ¼À PÀpt ¸ÉgɪÀÄ£É ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ²PÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 3. ¨sÁ.zÀA.¸ÀA. «¢ü 323 gÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀPÁÌV 1£Éà DgÉÆæUÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼À PÀpt ¸ÉgɪÀÄ£É ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ²PÉë, gÀÆ.1,000/- zÀAqÀ, zÀAqÀ PÉÆqÀ®Ä vÀ¦àzÀgÉ ºÀ¢£ÉÊzÀÄ ¢ªÀ¸À PÀpt ¸ÉgɪÀÄ£É ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ²PÉë C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 4. ¨sÁ.zÀA.¸ÀA. «¢ü 324 gÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀPÁÌV 1£Éà DgÉÆæUÉ DgÀÄ wAUÀ¼À PÀpt ¸ÉgɪÀÄ£É ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ²PÉë, gÀÆ.2,000/- zÀAqÀ, zÀAqÀ PÉÆqÀ®Ä vÀ¦àzÀgÉ MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À PÀpt ¸ÉgɪÀÄ£É ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ²PÉë C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 5. ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀAUÀqÀUÀ¼À (zËdð£Àå vÀqÉ) C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1989, «¢ü 3 G¥À«¢ü (1)(5) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ EgÀĪÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀPÁÌV 1£Éà DgÉÆæUÉ C¥ÀgÁzsÀPÁÌV DgÀÄ wAUÀ¼À PÀpt ¸ÉgɪÀÄ£É ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ²PÉë, gÀÆ.1,000/- zÀAqÀ, zÀAqÀ PÉÆqÀ®AiÀÄ vÀ¦àzÀgÉ MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À PÀpt ¸ÉgɪÀÄ£É ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ²PÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 6. ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀAUÀqÀUÀ¼À (zËdð£Àå vÀqÉ) C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1989, «¢ü 3 G¥À«¢ü (1)(11) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ EgÀĪÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀUÀ½UÁV C¥ÀgÁzsÀPÉÌ 1£Éà DgÉÆæUÉ DgÀÄ wAUÀ¼À PÀpt ¸ÉgɪÀÄ£É ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ²PÉë, gÀÆ.1,000/- zÀAqÀ, zÀAqÀ PÉÆqÀ®Ä vÀ¦àzÀgÉ MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À PÀpt ¸ÉgɪÀÄ£É ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ²PÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 7. zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄ ¸ÀA»vÉ «¢ü 357(3) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ 1£Éà DgÉÆæ ZÁ¸Á.2 ½UÉ gÀÆ.5,000/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjºÁgÀ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è ªÉÄîä£À« CªÀ¢ü ªÀÄÄVzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ PÉÆqÀ®Ä DzÉò¹zÉ." - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16003 CRL.A No. 794 of 2013 8. This is how, now the appellants are before this Court challenging the impugned judgment. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Sanath Kumara K.M. in addition to narrating the facts of the case and grounds urged in the appeal memo, would submit that, except the evidence of the complainant, there is no evidence placed on record by the prosecution. None of the ingredients of offences are brought on record. In the absence of material evidence linking the accused persons being the alleged authors of the crime, the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in passing the impugned judgment. 10. In support of his submission, learned Sri. Sanath Kumara placed reliance on the evidence lead by the prosecution and pointed out the contradictions, omissions in the evidence of the prosecution. He prays to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16003 CRL.A No. 794 of 2013 11. Per contra, Sri Channappa Erappa, learned HCGP supported the findings of Special Court and he justifies the impugned judgment. According to him, the formal grounds are urged in the appeal memo. The complainant and his wife stated straight forward evidence linking the accused in the commission of the crime. There was no necessity for this accused to abuse the complainant's wife by taking her Caste so also complainant. He would submit that, on proper assessment of the evidence, the learned trial Court has rightly concluded that accused are guilty of aforesaid offences by justified the reasons assigned by the Special Court and prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. In view of rival submissions of both the side, the only point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is, "Whether was there any sufficient evidence placed on record by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused?" - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16003 CRL.A No. 794 of 2013 13. To ascertain the aforesaid fact, one must read the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 14. PW.1 Ainar S/o Madhu was the complainant. He corroborates the contents of the complaint in his initial examination-in-chief. According to him, on hearing the galata, he came out of his house and noticed the presence of four accused persons. By that time, accused Kumara had assaulted his wife with wooden log. Further, accused no.1 assaulted him on his right leg. The people gathered near the bore well rescued him. He stated that, accused also abused the complainant and his wife by taking their Caste in a filthy language. Thereafter, his wife was taken to hospital. For the first time, he stated that, the residents of village, Srikanta and Ravi have told not to lodge a complaint and to compromise the dispute. To that compromise, accused did not agree, therefore, he lodged a complaint. He further stated that, even accused abused the complainant and his wife stating that, they are the eaters of cattle flesh and how they will make use of bore - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16003 CRL.A No. 794 of 2013 well water. He stated that, on filing the complaint, police came to the place of offence and prepared the panchanama. He stated that, no article is seized in his presence. Prosecution declared him as hostile witness to some extent and even then, he denied all the suggestions directed to him. 15. The cross-examination directed to him shows that, when the said incident took place near the said bore well, there were 10 to 15 peoples gathered to fetch the water. Amongst them, the people belonged to his Caste and other Castes were there. His wife was standing in a queue. At that time, he was in his house. The galata took place for one hour. About 100 peoples gathered at the scene of offence. After the galata, he went to Srirangapatna hospital. He admits that, the Arakere police station and the hospital are adjoining with each other and after going to the hospital, he lodged a complainant. He sustained injuries on his right hand and right leg. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16003 CRL.A No. 794 of 2013 16. He also took treatment at Srirangapatna Hospital and narrated the incident to the doctors. Further, he stated that, he knew the people gathered at the scene of offence when the incident took place. Two people took him to the hospital. Except the said galata with accused, there was no quarrel between himself and accused persons. He stated that, said bore well was dug by 10 people of their community and except them, nobody used to take water. He stated that, he was doing stone quarry, work. 17. If the evidence of this PW.1 is perused, though he visited the hospital and had knowledge that, by the side of the hospital, the Arakere police station is situated, but, he did not file the complaint immediately. According to him, 10 peoples of his community have dug the bore well and except them, nobody is taking the water. Then, how the accused persons came there and abused the wife of the complainant initially by taking Caste and thereafter, - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16003 CRL.A No. 794 of 2013 the complainant etc., is not properly explained by this PW.1. 18. PW.2 Poovi alias Poovamma is the wife of the complainant and she deposed that, in between 8.30 and 9.00 a.m. on 06.06.2012, she went to fetch the water from bore well. At that time, accused no.1 came there and told her that, she belongs to lower Caste and as he belongs to upper Caste, he has to take the water first. Because of these words, galata took place. She deposed that, accused no.1 assaulted her, treaded her and dragged her. Thereafter, other accused came there. Even accused no.3 abused her in filthy language. She deposed about conduct of the accused at that time. Further, she deposed that, to rescue her, her husband came there and accused assaulted him also, but, cannot say the nature of assault on him. Her husband had sustained injuries on his right hand. 19. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that, suddenly the accused Kumara took the Caste of the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16003 CRL.A No. 794 of 2013 complainant's wife as `Madiga' community. She further deposed that, suddenly accused no.1 took wooden log and hit on her right hand and leg. She had stated so before the Police. Further she deposed that, her husband had not sustained any injuries so as to take the treatment. According to her, about 5 people were fetching the water, one Hegde, Shaila, Hema and Choudappa's house girl were standing in queue and she was standing in the queue. She deposed that, said galata took place for 2 to 3 hours. After galata, she was moving towards Chinakurali to her grandmother's place. Near Srirangapatna, she lost her conscious. Her grandmother admitted her to Srirangapatna hospital. There she took treatment for 8 days as inpatient. For the first time, this PW. 2 deposed all these new facts. 20. PW.3 Murugesh is relative of complainant and PW.2. He has been turned as hostile though branded as an eyewitness, so also PW.4 Kempashetty, an eyewitness, PW.5 Raju have been turned hostile. Nothing worth were - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16003 CRL.A No. 794 of 2013 elicited from their mouth so as to prove that, they have witnessed the said incident in the manner alleged in the complaint. Therefore, except the self-serving evidence of PW.2, no evidence is lead by the prosecution that, these accused are authors of crime in the manner stated in the complainant. If such evidence is placed on record, it requires corroboration. 21. PW.6 Kum. Kala Krishnaswamy, in the absence of corroborative evidence from the independent witness, evidence of PW.6 becomes formal in nature. 22. PW.7 Dr.Komala P.S. had clinically examined PW.2 - Poovi and noticed the injuries on the person of PW.2 and has opined that, those injuries are simple in nature. She identified Wound Certificate. 23. She has cross-examined by the defence. It is the evidence of the prosecution that, complainant took treatment for a period of one week, but, it is not mentioned in Ex.P7. According to her, for 48 hours, the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16003 CRL.A No. 794 of 2013 said injuries would be in red colour. She has stated that, if a person falls on the hard substance, the said injuries may be possible. She never says that, PW.1 had also sustained injuries on his right hand. But, PW.1 says that, he had taken treatment at Srirangapatna. No Wound Certificate is produced to that effect. Therefore, the evidence of doctor can be accepted to the extent of issuing Wound Certificate after examining PW.2. PW.8 S. Nagaraju was the PSI of Arakere Police Station. He received the complaint by the complainant and set the criminal law in motion. 24. PW.1 states that, 6 to 7 peoples went to the police station to lodge a complaint but, this PW.8 stated that, complainant - PW.1 alone came to the police station and lodged a complaint and he lodged a written complaint. He stated that, he does not know whether the injured was admitted to the hospital or not. 25. Thus, I find inconsistent evidence about whether such an incident occurred or not. Except the self- - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16003 CRL.A No. 794 of 2013 serving evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, which is full of contradictions, omissions and discrepancies, there is no concrete evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that really such an incident has taken place. The learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence lead by the prosecution. The so called eyewitnesses as spoken to by PWs.1 and 2, who rescued the complainant and his wife from the clutches of accused, have been turned hostile. It is fatal to the case of prosecution. Therefore, only based upon the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 it cannot be stated that prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 26. In a case of present nature, prosecution has to prove the ingredients of the offence, especially under the SC / ST (PA) Act and assault on the complainant's wife with legal evidence. When PW.2 was standing in a queue along with similar community people, what was the intention of the accused persons to target PW.2 only leaving aside same community people is not explained. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16003 CRL.A No. 794 of 2013 27. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court by misreading the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 has wrongly concluded that, the accused are guilty of offences, which, in my opinion is incorrect and requires to be set aside. Therefore, the appeal succeeds and consequentially, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and accused are entitled to be acquitted of charges leveled against them. 28. Resultantly, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. (ii) Impugned judgment dated 11.07.2013 in Special Case No.63/2012 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, is hereby set-aside. (iii) Appellant-accused are acquitted of the charges, 323, 324, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(v)(x)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:16003 CRL.A No. 794 of 2013 (iv) The bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled and they are set at liberty. (v) Send back the trial Court records along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22