STATE OF KARNATAKA v. RAMESH

7. Sri M.B. Gundawade, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court is contrary to facts and evidence on record and is liable to be set aside. He submits that PW1 is the complainant and injured witness and PWs6 to 8 and 12 are the other injured witnesses who have specifically and categorically stated about the acts of each of the accused. The said evidence of injured witnesses has not been properly read and appreciated by the Sessions Court in its proper perspective and thereby erred in rejecting the truthful version of the witnesses. He submitted that the evidence of the injured witnesses is further supported by the - 8 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 evidence of PW3-Doctor who has examined the injured witnesses. The Sessions Court, by relying upon the minor contradiction and improvements found in the evidence of the material witnesses, has erroneously passed the impugned judgment. Learned Addl. SPP would submit that the Sessions Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the evidence of injured witnesses PWs1 and 6 to 8 are not corroborating with each other and further, the evidence of these witnesses does not corroborate with evidence of eye-witnesses PWs10 and 11 and that of PW13-Doctor and PWs14 and 15 Investigating Officers. The same is not sustainable since the presence of PWs1 and 6 to 8 is natural and they are the injured witnesses and their evidence has got special status in the eye of law. On all these grounds he sought to allow the appeal.

8. On the other hand, Sri J. Basavaraj learned counsel appearing for respondent-accused, submitted that the Sessions Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and that there are no legal infirmities in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, he sought to dismiss the appeal. - 9 - CRL.A No.100407/2021

9. Having heard on both sides and on perusal of the materials placed before us, the following points arise for our consideration in this appeal:

1. Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court suffers from legal infirmities requiring this Court to intercede?

2. What order?

10. Our answer to the above points is: Point No.1: In the negative; Point No.2: As per final order Regarding Point No.1

11. Before adverting to the actual facts of the case and appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to refer the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope and power of Appellate Court in appeal against the order of acquittal.

12. In the case of MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI & OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 676, at paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is held thus: - 10 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 “23. While considering the scope of power of the appellate court in an appeal against the order of acquittal, after referring to various judgments, in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007)4 SCC 415, this Court summarised the principle as under:- “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. compelling (3) Various expressions, such as, reasons”, “substantial and “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of - 11 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 innocence is available to him under the criminal principle fundamental jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence reaffirmed and strengthened by the Sessions court. reinforced, further (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Sessions court.”

13. In the case of MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS reported in 2019 SCC ONLINE 69, at paragraph 16 of the judgment it is held as under: “16. The High Court in the present case was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. In such a case, it is well settled that the High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because it opines that a different view is possible or even preferable. The High Court, in other words, should not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because two views are possible. The interference of the High Court in such cases is governed by well-established principles. According to these principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence by the Sessions court is capricious or its conclusions are without evidence that the High Court may reverse an order of acquittal. The High Court may be justified in interfering where it finds that the order of acquittal is - 12 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 not in accordance with law and that the approach of the Sessions court has led to a miscarriage of justice. …”

14. In the case of HARI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in 2000 SCC ONLINE 933, at paragraph 4 of the judgment, it is observed thus: “4. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan on the other hand contended that the power of the High Court while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal is in no way different from the power while hearing an appeal against conviction and the Court, therefore was fully justified in re-appreciating the entire evidence, upon which the order of acquittal was based. The High Court having examined the reasons of the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PWs 6 & 7 and having arrived at the conclusion, that those reasons are in the realm of conjectures and there has been gross miscarriage of justice and the mis- appreciation of the evidence on record is the basis for acquittal, was fully entitled to set aside an order of acquittal and no error can be said to have been committed. It is too well settled that the power of the High Court, while hearing an appeal against an acquittal is as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction and it had full power to re- appreciate the entire evidence, but if two views on the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal, - 13 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 merely because it feels that it would sitting as a Sessions court, have taken the other view. While re- appreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the learned Sessions Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice.…”

15. In the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KISTOORA RAM reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE 684, at paragraph 8 of the judgment it is held as under: “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.”

16. In the case of MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2016)10 SCC 220, at paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is observed thus: - 14 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 “12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a competent court after a full-fledged Sessions, and once the Sessions court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on the appellate court while dealing with the appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the power of the appellate court to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon which the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a conclusion.”

17. It is the case of prosecution that on 8th March 2012 at about 4:30 pm in front of the House belonging to the accused No.1, when the complainant and witnesses CW8 to 10 were proceeding on motorcycles, accused 1 to 8 abused them by taking their caste. When the complainant questioned, accused knowing fully well that the complainant and witnesses belongs to schedule caste community, picked-up quarrel with them and accused No.3 assaulted with pickaxe, accused No.4 assaulted with club on his head and other parts of the body with an intention to murder the complainant; and the remaining accused assaulted the complainant with hands. At that time, - 15 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 when CW8-Ashok Suthar came to pacify the quarrel, accused No.3 assaulted him with the same pickaxe. Accused No.1 assaulted CW9-Parashuram Meeshi and accused No.2 assaulted CW10-Prashant Navani with clubs. On seeing the pocket of the T-shirt worn by CW8-Ashok Suthar which was printed with the photograph of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and written as “Jai Bhim”, the accused abused the complainant taking the name of the caste and caused damage to the motorcycle parked on the road and also to the motorcycle of CW12-Kiran Kadkol by hitting with clubs. Further accused threw the motorcycles belonging to CWs12 & 15 in the gutter. Thus, accused committed the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 427, 504 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

18. Prosecution has cited 20 witnesses in the charge sheet. Out of them, 15 witnesses were examined as PW1 to

15. Eighteen documents are marked as Exhibits P1 to P18 and nine material objects are marked as MOs1 to 9.

19. CW1-Girimalla Parashappa Meeshi is examined as PW1. He has deposed in his evidence that CW7-Prashant - 16 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 Hadimani and CW8-Ashok Suthar, examined as PWs5 and 6 are his friends and they belong to the scheduled caste. Accused belong to Kuruba caste. On 8th March 2012 at 3:30 pm, he along with CWs7 and 8, were having lunch near Chakku Singh Garden. The complainant received a call from PW7-Parasuram Renuka Meeshi, stating that PW12 Mahantesh Sabu Meeshi was assaulted by some people and he had sustained head injury. Immediately, he and CWs7 & 8 went to the spot on motorcycle and when they arrived at the spot, Police jeep was there and police were taking injured the police station. Accordingly, CWs7, 8, 9 and 12 all went on motorcycles to Jamakhandi Police Station and near Amoghasidda Temple, in front of house of accuse No.1 Ramesh Holennavar, abused them as “ºÉÆAmÁgÀ £ÉÆÃqÀÄ ºÉƯÁå ¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄPÀÄî”. Hence, they stopped their motorcycles and asked as to why they are abusing them. Immediately, accused No.3, hit him on his head with a pickaxe and the other accused started to beat with their hands. At the time when CW8-Ashok Suthar came to pacify, he was hit on his ear by accuse No.2 and with the help of clubs accused damaged the motorcycle and threw in gutter beside the road. They escaped from their hands and went to Government Hospital and got admitted there. In the night at - 17 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 about 9.00 to 9.30, Jamakhandi Police visited the hospital. There with the help of Ashok Meeshi, he made a complaint to the Police. He has identified the said complaint marked as Exhibit P1. Then his blue colour T-shirt and lining shirt were seized by the Police. He has also identified four clubs and the pickaxe used for commission of offence and motorcycles, marked as MOs 1 to 6.

20. CW6-Ramesh Channappa Albal and CW7-Prashant Manohar Hadimani examined as PWs4 and 5, are the attesters to the seizure measure Exhibit P7. They have deposed in their evidence as to the seizure mahazar and also the seizure of pickaxe-MO6.

21. CW8-Ashok Suthar, CW9-Parashuram Meeshi, CW10-Prashant Krishnappa Navani said to be the eye-witnesses are examined as PWs6 to 8. They have not supported the case of the prosecution. All these witnesses have deposed in their evidence that they belong to scheduled caste and accused belong to Kuruba caste. On 8th March 2012 when they were in their house, PW6 taken him to the Chattu Singh Garden for having food. There they were waiting for CW7. At about 3.30 pm, CW9 called PW1 and informed to come to near RC plot - 18 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 since the accused have beaten PW12-Mahantesh Meeshi. Then he PW1 and CW12 went to the spot on the motorcycle. By the time they reached the spot, Police were already present and were taking them to the Police Station. They too followed them on their motorcycle to the police station. When they were so proceeding near the Amoghasiddha temple and when they were passing the House of Holennavar, the accused started abusing them by taking their caste. Then they stopped the vehicle and asked them as to why they are abusing them. At that time, 4 to 5 accused was telling that they will finish them, and among them, PW1 had hit the complainant on head and others hit with their hands and clubs on his left shoulder. At that time PW6 tried to rescue him, then the accused No.3 gave a blow on his right side with the pickaxe. Accused No.2 also gave blow to PW7 with club on his ear. Accused No.1, abuse them as “F ºÉÆ®å ¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀzÀÄÝ ¨sÁ¼À DUÉÊw” and also damaged their motorcycles. By the time, CW13, came there and pacified the Galata. They have identified the MOs1 to 9.

22. CW11-Shashidhar Mahadev Meeshi examined as PW9 is an independent witness. He submits that PWs5 to 8 and the complainant belongs to scheduled caste community. - 19 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 He know the accused and among them four belong to Kuruba community, accused No.8 belong to Panchashali community and he do not know the caste of others. He also has deposed that on 08th March 2012, he went to Government Hospital at Jamakhandi on hearing the news that Maalu Holennavar and others have assaulted Girimalla Meeshi and others belonging to his community. When he was so moving towards RC Plot, near Amoghasiddha Temple, he met PW8-Prashant Navani. He was having a bleeding injury on his head and when they were both proceeding, they met PW1 and PW6, Girimalla Meeshi and Ashok Suthar, who also had injuries. When they went to the house of Maalu Holennavar, Pandu Holenanvar and others were present and he saw that the motorcycles were in the gutter beside the road and another motorcycle fallen on the road which were all damaged. He has witnessed the injured persons and also the damaged motor motorcycle. In this regard PW10 has given complaint to the police.

23. CW12-Kiran Kadkol said to be the eye-witness examined as PW10 has not deposed anything as to the alleged incident. He has deposed that when he went to the spot, there was no Galata and he has deposed as to the injuries caused to the injured and about the damage caused to the motorcycles. - 20 - CRL.A No.100407/2021

24. CW13-Ramesh Meeshi examined as PW11 has deposed in his evidence that he knows PWs1 and 6 to 8. He has further deposed that about eight years back on the day of Holi Hunnime when he was passing through Chattu Singh Garden after playing Holi, PWs1 and 6 to 8 were proceeding on their motorcycle towards RC Plot. He also followed them on his motorcycle. There he saw Police Jeep carrying the injured. At that time, people belonging to his community PWs1 and 6 to 8 went to police station to enquire as to what happened. Then he and Kiran Kadakol went on their motorcycle along with them when they were proceeding near Amoghasiddha Temple after seeing PWs1 and 6 to 8, the accused started abusing them by taking their caste name and when they stopped their motorcycles and asked them as to why they are abusing the PW1 and 6 to 8 were hit by the accused with clubs and they damaged their motorcycles and threw them into the gutter. After that, he went to the Government hospital to see what has happened to Girimalla and Ashok Suthar.

25. CW14-Mahantesh Sabu Meeshi examined as PW12 has deposed in his evidence that at about eight years back while he was in his house, he received a call from Ramesh Singh stating that there is a Galata near Nagappa Katte and - 21 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 called him to come to the spot and he went to the spot on his motorcycle. There he saw accused Pandu and Vittal were having arrack. When he went there and asked them as to why they make Galata and called the brother of Maalu Hollennavar and informed him as to his brothers making Galata, at that time, nearly 10 to 11 people came there in a white Tata Ace vehicle and started to abuse them and also hit them with stones and clubs. He has also informed that the accused has beaten them and also caused him bleeding injuries during the galata. At that time, one Satyavva Gasti came to rescue. Accused even hit her making her sustain injuries. Then he left to the hospital later, he came to know about the Galata happened near Amoghasiddha Temple.

26. CW17-Dr. T.M. Venkata Raju, Specialist in the Government Hospital Jamakhandi who has been examined as PW13, has deposed as to the incident that took place on 8th March 2012 injuring Girimalla, Parashuram Meeshi, Prashant Krishnappa Navani came with history of assault. He has examined the injured and deposed as to the injuries as per Exhibit P8. It is stated that injuries are simple in nature. Further, he has deposed that on the same day at about 5:30 pm, one Ashok Suthar came with the history of assault. He has - 22 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 examined and stated that the injuries are simple in nature and also as to issuance of wound certificates Exhibits P9 to P11.

27. CW19-Ravichandra Devendrappa, Police Sub- Inspector, examined as PW14 and CW20 Girimalla Rayappa Kamble, retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, have deposed as to their respective investigation.

28. On perusal of the entire evidence and record, none of the witnesses have deposed as to the offence of unlawful assembly, rioting or armed with deadly weapons, having a common object. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of offence said to have committed under Sections 143, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

29. With regard to offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 307 of Indian Penal Code are concerned, as per the complaint-Exhibit P1, the injured gave complaint to the Police that the one of accused hit him with iron rod and one of the accused with firewood and another accused gave blow to the complainant with his hands. He has also stated that accused have assaulted victims on their head and all over the body and caused injuries. This alleged incident took place on - 23 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 8th March 2012 at 4:30 pm. On the basis of this complaint, police have registered case against accused in Crime No.39 of 2012 and submitted FIR on 9th March 2012 at 7:30 pm as per Exhibit P12. The Investigating Officer has not explained as to the delay in submitting the FIR to the Court. The wound certificates, pertaining to Girimalla, Ashok Suthar, Parashuram Meeshi and Prashant Krishna Navani marked as Exhibits P8 to P11 respectively are produced. The same reveal that all these witnesses have been admitted to Government Hospital Jamakhandi on 8th March 2012 at 4:30 pm with the history of assault and they have sustained the following injuries: “Exhibit P8 - pertaining to Girimalla Parasappa Meeshi:

1. CLW over L parietal region, measuring about 3 x 1 cm muscle deep reddish in colour;

2. Contusion over dorsum of R hand 5 x 5 cm;

3. Contusion over R shoulder 4 x 4 cm X-ray skull AP/lat No.466/8.3.12 – NAD X-ray R hand AP/oblique X-ray R shoulder AP (No.475/9.3.12- NAD) - 24 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 Exhibit P9 - pertaining to Ashok Rudrappa Sutar:

1. CLW over R frontal area measuring 2 x 1 cm muscle deep bleeding X;

2. abrasion over lateral aspect of R arm measuring about 3 x 1 cm deep reddish in colour;

3. Contusion over medial aspect of R knee 4 x 2 cm; Skull AP/lat No.4675 dt. 8.3.12 – NAD X-ray R knee AP/lat No.477 9.3.12 – NAD Exhibit P10 pertaining to Parasuram Meeshi:

1. CLW over R hand in palmar aspect of 1st Webspace, measuring 2 x 1 cm muscle deep reddish in colour;

2. Abrasion over post aspect L arm measuring about 2 x 1 cm, superfoul, reddish in colour; X-ray R wrist hand No.468/8.3.12 – NAD; Exhibit P11 pertaining to Prashant Krishna Navani:

1. CLW over L parietal region just above the L pinna measuring 3 x 1 cm muscle deep bleeding +;

2. CLW over occipital Region, measuring about 3 x 2 cm muscle deep;

3. abrasion over lateral aspect of R elbow measuring about 4 x 3 cm deep reddish colour;

4. abrasion over L infravicular area 3 x 2 cm deep reddish in colour; - 25 - CRL.A No.100407/2021

5. Abrasion over L scapular area 2 x 1 cm deep reddish in colour; X-ray Ap/lat No.469 dated 8.3.12 – NRA”

30. The Doctor has opined that all these injuries are simple in nature. The Doctor-PW13-Dr. T.M. Venkataraju, who has treated these injured, has deposed in his evidence as to the injuries found in the wound certificates. PW13 has not deposed that the injured came with the history of assault. Even the wound certificates do not reveal the names of the accused. If really injured had sustained injuries with history of assault made by the accused, they would have disclosed the names of the accused who have assaulted them. Even weapons used for commission of offence, has not been disclosed by these witnesses. The wound certificates and the evidence of Doctor also not disclose as to the weapons used for commission of offence. Had the accused assaulted with club-MOs.1 to 4 and pickaxe-MO6 and attempted to commit murder of the injured as alleged by the prosecution, they would have sustained severe/grievous injuries, whereas, as stated above, the wound certificates reveal that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature. Therefore, the same will create doubt as to the alleged act of the accused. - 26 - CRL.A No.100407/2021

31. With regard to seizure of property MOs.1 to 4 clubs said to have been seized on the spot as per Exhibit P2; seizure of bloodstained light-blue colour shirt, and another seizure panchanama dated 8th March 2012, with respect to seizure of a bloodstained lining shirt; seizure of bloodstained white T-shirt, and white cross-banian, so also, seizure of Pickaxe-MO6 are concerned, the Police have conducted the mahazar on 9th March 2012 between 17:15 and 18:30 hours and the same has not been submitted to the Court at the earliest point of time. The investigating officer has submitted panchanama of the property form and sketch only along with the charge-sheet. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Investigating Officer has not explained anything as to delay in submitting panchanama and proper form to the Court. This also will create doubt in the minds of the Court.

32. With regard to seizure of damaged motorcycles marked as MOs.7 to 9 are concerned, the prosecution has produced Exhibit P15-IMV report which is marked with consent. At request of the Police Inspector, the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Regional Transport Office, Jamakhandi has inspected the - 27 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 motorcycles on 17th March 2012. Exhibit P15-report reads as under: “Submitted: Sub-Inspection of damaged mv and this valuation Report Ref H-53/2012 dated 17.3.12 With reference to the above subject, inspected the following mv with registration No.

1. KA489/L 6178 M/c H.Honda Black in colour Damages: 1. H.L. doom left side scrach first

2. Chh b… damage Approximate value of the damage is 200/- two hundred only

2. KA 48/L 556 Mc with HH black in colour Damages: 1. front left side indicator damage;

2. front fork at rightside damage Approximate value of damage is 2,200/- (two thousand two hundred only)

3. CL MBLHAQ11ENB9M2499f M/c HH No visible damage to the mv.”

33. Though the Investigating Officer seized these motorcycles on 09th March 2012 as per Exhibit P2, but has not made requisition to the concerned Motor Vehicles Inspector at the earliest point of time. The RC book pertaining to these motorcycles are also not produced before the Court. The delay - 28 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 in conducting inspection of motorcycles also create doubt as to the damage caused to these motorcycles as alleged by the prosecution. Further, as per report Exhibit P5, one of the motorcycles having Chassis No.CLMBLHA11ENB9M2499f has not sustained any damage and no visible damages found on the said motorcycle. Accordingly, Investigating Officer has failed to place the material to attract the alleged commission of offence under Section 427 of Indian Penal Code.

34. A careful scrutiny of the material witnesses makes it crystal clear that the evidence of PW1 and 6 to 8 are not corroborated with each other. There are no cogent, convincing, clinching evidence to believe the evidence of material witness PWs1 and 6 to 8. There are material omissions and contradictions in their evidence. In this regard Exhibits D1 to D4 also are marked. The statement made by witnesses is not in consistence with the contents of the complaint-Exhibit P1. The motive and intention of the accused to commit the alleged offence has not been properly explained by the prosecution. The evidence of prosecution witnesses have not been substantiated by the independent witnesses. Considering all these aspects, the Sessions Court has properly held that - 29 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

35. With regard to offence under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Rule 7 of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short hereinafter refrred to as the “SC/ST (PoA) Rules”), provides that the offence committed under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, shall be investigated by a Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Rule 7 of the SC/ST (PoA) Rules read as under: “7. Investigating Officer.- (1) An Offence committed under the shall be investigated by a Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Investigating Officer shall be appointed by Government/Director Police/Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time. General State (2) The investigating officer so appointed under sub–rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority and submit the report to the Superintendent of Police, who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director– General of Police or Commissioner of Police of the State Government, and the officer– in–charge of the concerned police station shall file the charge–sheet in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court within a period of sixty days (the period is inclusive of investigation and filing of charge– sheet.) - 30 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 (2A) The delay, if any, in investigation or filing of charge–sheet in accordance with sub–rule (2) shall be explained in writing by the investigating officer. (3) The Secretary, Home Department and the Secretary, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Department (the name of the Department may vary from State to State) to the State Government or Union Territory Administration, Director Prosecution, the officer–in–charge of Prosecution and the Director–General of Police or Commissioner of Police in– charge of the concerned State or Union Territory shall review by the end of every quarter the position of all investigations done by the investigating officer.”

36. In the present case, pursuant to a complaint lodged by one Girimalla Meeshi, Police Inspector of Law and Order at Jamakhandi, a criminal case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 427, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), read with Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST (PoA) Act). The First Information Report (FIR) was accordingly submitted before the jurisdictional Court. During the trial, PW14—Ravichandra corroborated this in his deposition and affirmed the registration of the case on the basis of the said complaint. - 31 - CRL.A No.100407/2021

37. Subsequently, the investigation of the case was entrusted to PW15—Girimalla Kamble, who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) at the relevant time. In his testimony, PW15 deposed regarding the conduct of various procedural formalities such as the preparation of the spot panchanama and seizure panchanama, as well as the recording of witness statements. However, the statements of witnesses and their further statements on record reveal that the Investigating Officer did not read over or explain the contents of the recorded statements to the witnesses. It is evident that the Investigating Officer merely affixed his signature marked as “samakshama” (meaning “in the presence of”), without certifying the comprehension or voluntary nature of such statements by the witnesses. Moreover, the statements were produced in computerised form, and the prosecution has neither disclosed who actually recorded the statements nor who, if anyone, read them over to the witnesses. This casts serious doubt over the procedural sanctity and evidentiary reliability of the witness statements.

38. It is also pertinent to note that PW15 commenced the investigation on 8th March 2012 and ultimately submitted the charge sheet only on 23rd May 2012. This delay of over 60 - 32 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 days in filing the charge sheet, measured from the date of commencement of investigation by the DySP, has not been explained by the Investigating Officer, as required under the sub-rules to Rule 7 of the SC/ST (PoA) Rules. Furthermore, PW15 failed to adhere to the mandatory requirement under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to promptly submit the seizure report to the jurisdictional Magistrate. The record reflects not only a failure to submit the seizure report within the stipulated period but also a complete lack of explanation for such delay, in clear contravention of the statutory mandates.

39. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Babbu Rathore and Another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 577, has categorically held that non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 7 of the SC/ST (PoA) Rules vitiates the prosecution’s case and is fatal to its success. The ratio laid down in the said decision is squarely applicable to the present case, where similar procedural lapses have occurred at the stage of investigation.

40. In the light of the aforementioned deficiencies and procedural irregularities, the prosecution has demonstrably - 33 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 failed to produce cogent, consistent, and corroborative evidence which is capable of establishing the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence presented lacks the necessary conviction, credibility, and clarity to substantiate the charges under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 427, and 504 of the IPC, as well as under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The omissions, contradictions, and gaps in the investigative process and evidence presented before the Court undermine the integrity of the prosecution’s case. Consequently, the learned Sessions Court, after due appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly proceeded to acquit the accused persons of all the charges framed against them.

41. Upon a thorough reconsideration, re-examination, and re-appreciation of the entire evidence available on record both oral and documentary and bearing in mind the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as the mandatory procedural safeguards enshrined in the SC/ST (PoA) Act and Rules, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court is not vitiated by any perversity, - 34 - CRL.A No.100407/2021 illegality, or error warranting interference. We accordingly find no justifiable ground to upset the acquittal. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in the negative. Regarding Point No.2:

42. For aforestated reasons and discussions, we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R (i) Appeal is dismissed; (ii) Judgment of acquittal dated 06th November 2019 passed in Special Case No.30 of 2012 by the II Additional District and Sessions, Judge, Bagalkot is confirmed. (iii) Registry to send the trial court records along with the copy of this Judgment to the concerned Court. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE