- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 500 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. GIDDAPPA S/O ERANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O BODIHALLI VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522 2. ERANNA S/O BOODEPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O BODIHALLI VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522 3. ERANNA S/O HULIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O BODIHALLI VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522 4. KALDAPPA S/O DODDATHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O BODIHALLI VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522 Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 5. CHANDRAPPA S/O MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O BODIHALLI VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK 577522 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. UMESH P.B, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PARASHURAMAPURA POLICE STATION-577 538 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.4.13 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DIST., AND S.J., CHITRADURGA IN SPL.CASE NO.5/10 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 341, 504, 506 R/W 149 AND 354 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(x),3(1)(xv) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, 1989 AND SEC.7(1)(b) OF PCR ACT. AND 3(1)(xi) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, 1989. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.04.2013 passed in Special Case No.5/2010 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. By the impugned judgment, accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 are convicted and sentenced as under: "1. The accused-1-Giddappa S/o Eranna, accused- 3-Eranna S/o. Boodeppa, accused-4- Eranna S/o Huliyappa, accused-5-Kaldappa S/o Doddathimmaiah and accused-6-Chandrappa S/o Mallappa all are R/o Boodihalli village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga Dist, shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence punishable U/Sec.143 of IPC. 2. Further, the accused above stated shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years, for the offence punishable U/Sec.147 of IPC. 3. Further, the accused above stated shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence punishable U/Sec.341 r/w Sec.149 of IPC. 4. Further, the accused above stated shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years, for the offence punishable U/Sec.504 r/w Sec.149 of IPC. 5. Further, the accused above stated shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 for the offence punishable U/Sec.506 r/w sec.149 of IPC. 6. Further, the accused above stated shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/- each, for the offence punishable U/Sec. 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (P.A) Act, 1989. 7. Further, the accused above stated shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/- each, for the offence punishable U/Sec.3(1)(xv) of SC/ST (P.A) Act, 1989. 8. Further, the accused above stated shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and shall pay fine amount of Rs.500/- each, for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(1)(b) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. 9. Further, the accused-1 above stated shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years, for the offence punishable U/Sec.354 of IPC. 10.Further, the accused-1 above stated shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/- each, for the offence punishable U/Sec.3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (P.A) Act 1989. 11. In default to pay fine amount above stated the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 12. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 2. Now, accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 are before this Court challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence stated above. Brief facts of the case: 3. Accused Nos.1 to 6 so stated in the charge- sheet were charge-sheeted by Dy.S.P. Challakere Sub- Division, Hiriyur, alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 504, 506, 354 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 7(3) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 22.01.2009, the complainant by name Marakka along with others after cutting the firewood from the Government Gomala land were transporting the same in a tempo. At that time, the people belonging to the Golla and Nayaka Community attempted to manhandle them. This act of manhandling was brought to the notice of the police on 23.12.2009. Police came to their village and pacified the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 quarrel in between the said communities, complainant and others. It was informed to them that, on the following day i.e., on 24.12.2009, the Tahasildar would visit the village. Accordingly on the said day, Tahasildar and police came to the village of the complainant and informed the complainant and others that, no one should cultivate the Government land, otherwise a criminal case would be registered against such persons. To this say of the Tahasildar and police, the complainant kept mum. It is stated that, on 25.12.2009 at about 7.30 p.m, complainant and their men folk were called to the panchayat to enquire with regard to the cutting of the firewood from the Government Gomala land. To this call of the panchayat, the complainant refused to attend the panchayat. Despite refusal to attend the said panchayat, the complainant and others forcibly were brought to the panchayat and panchayat was conducted there. When the complainant and Jayamma, examined as PW.2 were moving towards the panchayat, at that time, accused No.1 – Giddappa and accused No.3 - Eranna started abusing the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 complainant in filthy language by taking the Caste and tried to outraged the modesty of the complainant and Jayamma and tried to sexually assault them. Because of this, complainant and Jayamma - PW.2 shouted for help. 4. On hearing the scream, PW.3, PW.4 and PW.7 came to the said spot and the complainant and Jayamma informed the alleged act of the accused persons. Even this fact was also brought to the notice of the panchayat. It is alleged that, accused No.2 belonging to the Nayaka Caste and he too abused by taking the Caste of the complainant and told that, the complainant's family is belonging to the "Madiga community" and they would be socially boycotted. The other accused persons supported the say of accused No.2. It is alleged that, as the accused persons have taken the name of Caste of the complainant and PW.2 as "Madiga community", these accused persons have violated the provisions of the SC/ST (PA) Act, so also the complainant and Jayamma were subjected to sexual assault. With these allegations, a complaint came to be - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 filed as per Ex.P1 before one Shoukath Ali-A.S.I, Parashurampura police Station alleging the aforesaid offences, which was registered by the police. Thereby criminal law was set in motion. 5. The Investigating Officer reached the scene of offence, conducted spot panchanama as per Ex.P2 in the presence of panchas. Recorded the statements of the witnesses. After collecting necessary documents and on completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against accused persons for the aforesaid offences before the Special Court. The Special Court took cognizance of the offences. Presence of the accused persons was secured and they were enlarged on bail. On hearing both the side, charges against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences were framed, read over and explained to them in Kannada, in the language known to them. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 6. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined 10 witnesses (PW.1 to PW.10) and also got marked Exs.P1 to P7. On closure of the prosecution evidence, all the accused persons stated above 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 any defence evidence on their behalf. 7. On hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, the learned Special Court raised six points for consideration and answered all the points in the affirmative and ultimately convicted and sentenced the accused persons as stated supra. This is how, now except accused No.2, the other accused persons are before this Court in this appeal challenging the impugned judgment of their conviction and order of sentence. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 8. The learned counsel for the appellants – accused persons, with all vehemence in addition to narrating the facts of the case, would submit that, the conviction and order of sentence so passed by the trial Court is contrary to law and evidence. The trial Court has committed a grave error in convicting the appellants. There is suppression of material fact by the prosecution and true version was not at all brought before the Court by the prosecution. All the witnesses so examined in this case, except the police officers are the interested witnesses and their evidence is not corroborated by any independent evidence. He would submit that, there are more contradictions, omissions and discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses so examined by the prosecution. Even there is a delay in filing the complaint also. The learned trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence placed on record has convicted the accused and sentenced them. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the grounds so urged in the appeal memo would suffice to prove that, the accused are innocent - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 persons and have not committed any offence in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, he prays to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. 9. As against this submission, Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that, the witnesses so examined in this case though are relatives have spoken truth before the Court. Because of ill will, the accused persons had committed the said offence against the complainant and PW.2 – Jayamma. As the complainant family was not having the landed properties, they used to cultivate the Government land and used to cut the trees in the Government Gomala land. When the panchayat was conducted, as the complainant and PW.2 were moving towards the panchayat katta, at that time, these accused persons interrupted them and committed the offence by taking name of the Caste, as well as tried to outrage the modesty of PW.1 and PW.2. Abused them in filthy language. Thus, as PW.1 and PW.2 have spoken legal and acceptable evidence, which is - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 corroborated by other witnesses. He submits that, the trial Court is right in convicting and sentencing the accused persons. In support of his submission, the learned HCGP relied upon the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. He prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of both the side. Meticulously perused the records. In view of the submissions of both the side and on perusal of the material placed on record, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the trial Court has committed any illegality and infirmity in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which require interference by this Court?” 11. It is a case of alleged assault and violation of the provisions of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, so also Section 7(3) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. In an offence of present nature, it is a bounden duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 beyond all reasonable doubt. So to say, in criminal cases, the chain of circumstances has to be proved with corroborative evidence. Then only, the Court accepts such evidence. There shall not be any material contradictions in the evidence lead by the prosecution witnesses. The evidence so placed on record has to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court that accused persons are the authors of the crime. 12. To come to a definite conclusion with regard to the guilt of the accused, we have to read the evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Amongst them, PW.1 – Marakka is the complainant. According to her evidence, about one year back prior to filing of the complaint, when complainant was transporting the firewood in a tempo, came to their village. At the time accused Nos.2 and 5 came near the tempo and told that, they are not going to leave the said tempo carrying the said firewood. When enquired by the complainant, it was told that, 33 members of the committee have arranged the panchayat and - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 complainant and others are asked to attend the said panchayat. Even, it was informed to the complainant by one Boothappa and Chairmen, to pay the fine amount. At that time, complainant told that, after selling the said firewood, they would pay the amount and requested to leave the said loaded tempo. But it was told that, they are not going to leave the said tempo. It is her evidence that, complainant told them that, "you accused persons have cultivated the landed property and have removed the mud from that land, by that they have earned lakhs of rupees by selling of the mud". When the said panchayat took place, it was about 8 p.m. and the said tempo was not permitted to be depart from the said place. On the following morning, the complainant and there men folk were called to the panchayat. But the complainant did not attend the said panchayat. The villagers requested the complainant to come to the panchayat. It was told in the panchayat that, each of the complainant and her men will be fined Rs.500/- if they fail to attend the panchayat. Even then, complainant did not agree for the same. On - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 the following day, again, the Tahasildar called the villagers, so also he called the complainant to the panchayat. The said Tahasildar informed, not to cut the firewood from the Government land; otherwise he will register a criminal case against them. Again on Sunday, on the following day, Deputy Commissioner came to the panchayat and complainant was called there. Deputy Commissioner informed not to cultivate the landed property and asked them to go to the Coolie work. They informed that, by doing Coolie, they cannot survive. Complaint's men asked that, why, they are not supposed to cultivate the landed property as they are poor persons. It was informed to the complainant and her men that, if they cultivate the landed property of the Government, they would register a criminal case against them. Again, on the said day at 8 p.m., men folk of the complainant’s family went to the panchayat. The complainant and her people were scared that her men folk will be beaten in the panchayat, therefore they also started moving towards the panchayat. At that time, accused Boothappa and - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 Giddappa took the name of the Caste of the complainant’s family. Accused No.1 caught holds the hands of the complainant and made her to fall down. At that time, complainant bombarded. Jayamma and Honnuraswamy were near the pachayat katta came running there. On seeing them, accused No.1 ran away from the said place. This fact was informed to the panchayat. At that time, accused No.2 also took the name of the complainant’s Caste as “Madiga” and told that, all these “Madiga” people have come towards the panchayat. As the accused have taken the name of the complainant and tried to sexually assault the complainant, this PW.1 lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1. According to her evidence, on filing the complaint, the police officers have come to the scene of offence and conducted the panchanama as per Ex.P2 in the presence of panchas. To some extent this PW.1 was treated as a hostile witness by the prosecution and certain questions with regard to the time of filing the complaint and other factual aspects so stated in the complaint are - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 brought on record in the further cross-examination directed by the prosecution. 13. This PW.1 has been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence. It is brought on record in the cross- examination that, in the village of the complainant, there are about 300 residential houses. In the said village, the people belonging to Golla Community, Nayaka Community and Madiga Community are residing. According to her, the complaint was got typed by CW.7. She stated that, she does not know the contents of the said complaint as she does not know to read and write. According to her, the police read over Ex.P2 and thereafter, she put her signature. From this evidence, it is very much clear that, PW.1 – complainant has no knowledge with regard to the contents of the complaint. 14. It has come in the evidence of this PW.1 that, in all, 33 persons belonging to her community wanted to cultivate the Gomala land belonging to the Government. It is stated that, about 22 people have filed the case - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 before the High Court seeking permission to cultivate the Gomala land. It is alleged that through Tahasildar, it was informed to the complainant and others not to cultivate the said Government land. After three days of the panchayat, this complainant went to the Parashurampura Police Station and lodged a complaint. After filing complaint, about 35 people belonging to her community went to Venkateshwara Nagara and Challakere and started residing as the people of her village boycotted them. According to her, when she went to Parashurampura Police Station, she was in the police station till 10 p.m. on that day. Even she tells that, about she filing complaint nobody knows about it. According to her, she also lodged a complaint to Dy.S.P. Further she states that, when she filed a complaint, the official of Human Rights Commission President by name Sri.Shivamurthy was present, who was the spokesmen of District of their community. As per their demand, Deputy Commissioner had written to the Government and got granted 33 Acres of land to the 17 families. The said land is situated near Ullarthi village. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 Further she states that, as the Tahasildar has informed not to cultivate the Gomala land, therefore, they stopped cultivating. She denied a suggestion that, a false complaint is filed against the accused persons. 15. On reading the entire evidence of PW.1, it do suggests that, there is some dispute with regard to the cultivation of the Government land. To show that, really there was an abuse of the complainant and her family members taking Caste by the accused persons, except the self serving, inconsistent evidence of PW.1, no evidence is placed on record through the evidence of PW.1. If such evidence is placed on record by the prosecution, it really requires corroboration. It is directed to this PW.1 in the further cross-examination that, at Bhudihalli A.K, one Hatti Colony is situated, which is about quarter kilometer away from Bhudihalli A.K Hatti Colony. According to her, after filing this complaint, she has got Rs.25,000/- as a compensation from the Government. Further she states that, with regard to the grant order of compensation, she - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 has given the copy of the same to the police. For the first time, she speaks all such evidence before the trial Court. It appears that, she wanted to improve her version. 16. According to her, she went to the shop of Rangappa on the following day of galata to purchase soap and at the time, the Rangappa told that, he is not going to sell the soap to her. Even she showed the shop of Rangappa to the police. For the first time, she has spoken all this evidence in her cross-examination without mentioning any of this facts in her complaint, as well as in her chief examination. She states that, she also went to the flourmill owned by one Palanna S/o chairman Rangappa for the purpose of getting flour. She has taken Rs.10/- along with her and she had showed the said flourmill to the police. This fact is also not stated either in the complaint or in her chief examination. Altogether different, improved evidence has been spoken by this PW.1 in her evidence. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 17. PW.2 – Jayamma is an eyewitness branded by the prosecution. According to her evidence, about one and half year back, prior to the giving her evidence, at about 9 p.m., when herself and PW.1 were moving towards the panchayat katta, at that time, one Sanna Giddappa, Bootappa, Hottappa and accused Nos.5 and 6 were there. They all abused the complainant and PW.2 by taking their Caste and abused them in filthy language. Even it was told that, these “Madiga” people should not be called to the Garden lands for the purpose of work and they have to be fined etc., She identified Bootappa, who was present before the Court on that day. Further she stated that, Sanna Giddappa took out the saree of the complainant and dragged it. Herself, Eranna, Hanumanthappa, Honnuraswamy went there and at that time, Giddappa ran away from the said place. These PW.1 and PW.2 came to their respective houses by crying themselves. According to her, when the saree of the complainant was dragged, she was about 100 feet away from the said place. It was 9 p.m at the time. It is not - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 the evidence of PW.2 that, there was full electricity light or full moon light etc., and could see the dragging of the saree of the complainant by this accused – Gidappa. No such evidence is placed on record through this PW.2 by the prosecution. In the cross-examination, she stated that, near the panchayat katta, at that time, about 100 – 200 peoples were gathered. At the said place itself, about 35 family members were there near the panchayat katta. The said incident took place at 9 p.m. Near the panchayat katta, there is a bunk shop. When they reached the said panchayat katta, police were not there. After eight days, police came there and informed about the said fact. According to her, she has informed the police about dragging of saree of PW.1 by accused No.1 – Giddappa. 18. Even she has stated, that herself, Earanna, Hanumantha, Honnuraswamy went there and Giddappa ran away from the said place. But there is no such evidence stated by PW.1. Further with regard to reaching the place of the incident by this PW.2, along with Earanna, - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 Honnuraswamy, Hanumantha no evidence is placed on record in the deposition of PW.1. According to her, when PW.1 and PW.2 together were moving, the said incident took place, but PW.1 speaks otherwise. Further, she improved and stated that, when she reached the spot, Sanna Giddappa, Chandranna, Kallappa, Bootappa, Hottappa were there. Even she informed the police about abusive words used by the accused and also imposing of Rs.1,000/- fine on the complainant and others families. She denied other suggestions. 19. If the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is compared, we find inconsistent evidence in the evidence of both these witnesses. The dispute is with regard to the cultivation of the Government land, which was being warned by the Revenue Authorities not to cultivate by these complainant and other families. PW.2 is the mother of PW.1. It is argued by the counsel for the appellants that, PW.1 and PW.2 are the daughter and mother and both are interested - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 witnesses and to falsely implicate the accused persons, they have given their evidence with full of embellishments. 20. PW.3 - Hanumanthappa is one of the witness who was very much present near the bunk shop, when the panchayat took place at about 7.30 to 8 p.m. about one year back prior to giving of his evidence. As per the case of the prosecution, this PW.3 is an eyewitness. But he has stated that, from the place where he was standing, he could not see the galata, but he heard the galata. That means, he had not seen the galata with his own eyes, but has heard the sound of galata. According to him, he went to the place when Giddappa was dragging the hand of the complainant. But PW.2 stated that, Giddappa was dragging the saree of the complainant. PW.1 stated that, accused No.1 tried to outrage her modesty. Further stated that, on seeing the people coming, Giddappa went away towards Gollarahatty. According to him, he heard the noise and came back towards the panchayat. He has stated that, the Anjanappa's shop is about 200 feet away - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 from the panchayat katta, in between, there are five residential houses. Near the panchayat, at that time, 200 peoples were gathered. But he cannot name them. Further he has stated that, near the said bunk shop, the A.K. community people's houses are situated. Thus, the evidence of this PW.3 is quite contrary to the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. 21. PW.4 - Eranna is another witness who deposed with regard to the cutting of the firewood from the Government Gomala land, as well as bringing them in a tempo. According to him, the accused persons stopped the said tempo near the temple and unloaded the said firewood. PW.1 and PW.2 never says so. According to his evidence, the galata took place at about 8 p.m and the women folk shouted for help. PW.1 and PW.2 asked the men folk to come. This PW.4 went there and at that time, these PW.1 and PW.2 informed him that Giddappa, Eranna dragged their hands. But PW.2 never deposed that, her hands were dragged by Eranna or Giddappa, so also PW.1. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 Partly this witness had been declared as hostile by the prosecution, but nothing worth is elicited. This PW.4 was cross-examined by the defence. It is brought on record with regard to the cultivation of the Gomala land and warning by the Revenue Authorities not to cultivate the land. Thus, the evidence of this PW.4 is also quite inconsistent with that of the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 in material particulars. 22. PW.5 - Pathalingappa is another witness branded by the prosecution as eyewitness, but according to his evidence, when the said galata took place, he was near the bunk shop and at that time, he was informed that, accused No.1 has dragged PW.1. He was not an eyewitness to the said incident as per his own chief- examination. Accused No.1 ran away according to him. The trend of cross-examination directed to this PW.5 shows that, he is not an eyewitness to the said incident of sexual assault on the person of the complainant by the accused. He had deposed so many facts before the police - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 according to his evidence, but such recitals are not found in his statement recorded by the police. We find improved evidence of this witness with regard to the said incident itself. He denied other suggestions. 23. PW.6 is the pancha to Ex.P2, wherein he put his signature. But according to him, at the instance of the police, he put his signature to Ex.P2. He is quite ignorant about the contents of the panchanama Ex.P2. According to him, he went to the police station at about 9 p.m on that day. Police have not called him by issuing notice to him. When he is quite ignorant with regard to the contents of the panchanama Ex.P2, much value cannot be attached to his evidence. 24. PW.7 - Honnuraswamy is another witness who deposed before the Trial Court to speak with regard to the carrying of the firewood by the complainant and her men etc., According to him, the said firewood was brought near the Maramma Temple and it was not at all being stopped by anybody. According to him, when the said tempo came - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 out of the village, accused No.3 told to boycott these people from the village etc. He deposed with regard to the panchayat. He deposed that, he does not remember that, who were all present at that time. According to him, on the following day, PSI and Tahasildar came to the village and asked them not to cut the firewood from the Government land. Even it was asked to the complainant's people to approach the Civil Court. This is altogether different evidence spoken by this PW.7 with regard to the said dispute. This PW.7 has been cross-examined and he deposed that, it was informed by the Tahasildar not to cultivate the landed property, as there is an order of High Court operating. According to PW.1, this PW.7 got typed Ex.P1. But PW.7 says that, he has not got typed the said complaint Ex.P1. He is the member of DSS at Challakere Taluku and one Sri. Shivamurthy is the president of said DSS from the year 2009. He denied other suggestions. PW.7 is the author of the said complaint, as per the say of PW.1, but PW.7 denies the same. Even PW.1 is not aware about the contents of the complaint. Therefore, we find - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 inconsistent evidence with regard to the filing of a complaint by the complainant. 25. PW.8 - Dr.Shama Parveen medically examined complainant - PW.1 on 26.12.2021 at 11 p.m. and noticed no injuries on the person of complainant. To show that, there was a sexual assault on the person of the complainant, except the evidence of PW.1, there is no evidence placed on record. Even evidence of PW.8 is very much silent with regard to the said assault on the person of the complainant by accused in the manner alleged in the complaint. This PW.8 is of the opinion that, there is no sexual assault taken place. Accordingly, she has issued Ex.P3. Thus, the evidence spoken by this PW.8 is quite contrary to the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, which is material in this case. 26. PW.9 - Govindaraj, the PSI, apprehended the accused Nos.4 to 6 and produced them before the IO at 8.15 p.m on 29.12.2009. There is no dispute with regard to the said apprehension of these accused persons. - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 Except denial, nothing was elicited in the cross- examination. To the extent of apprehension of accused Nos.4 to 6 by this PW.9, his evidence is to be believed. 27. PW.10 - Bommanahal, the Dy.S.P, the IO in this case and deposed with regard to the investigation so carried out by him during the course of investigation. He deposed that, he recorded the statements of the witnesses and collected document and filed the charge sheet. In the cross-examination he says that, in between Challakere and Bhudihal village, the distance is about 26 k.m. He worked as CPI and Dy.S.P for two terms at Challakere. He visited Bhudihalli village prior to 23.12.2009. According to him, PW.1 and Jayamma were in Challakere Hospital. He made arrangement to bring them to Bhudihalli village. He gave a requisition to the LMO to examine PW.1. According to him, there are about 210 houses in the said village comprising Nayaka, Golla and S.C communities. He has been cross-examined at length. It is brought on record in the cross-examination that, during the course of - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 investigation, he has not collected any of the documents pertaining to the residence of Marakka, Jayamma and other witnesses. Even he has not collected ration cards, voter ID etc., He states that, when he was recording a statement of PW.1 - complainant, it was not stated by her that, she had gone to the shop of Rangappa to bring the soap. Even he has stated that, during the course of investigation, it is not brought to the notice about imposition of fine on the complainant and her witnesses. But PWs.1, 2 and 3 consecutively tells about the imposition of the fine by the panchayat and also the other persons who were in the panchayat for transporting the said firewood in a tempo. 28. On reading the entire evidence spoken by the witnesses as discussed supra, except the self serving inconsistent evidence of PW.1, there is no material evidence placed on record by the prosecution that, really the accused persons had taken the name of the Caste of the complainant and her men and have thus violated the - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 civil rights of the complainant. No such evidence is brought on record by the prosecution. These accused persons were charge sheeted by the police for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 341, 504, 506, 354 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 7(3) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. None of the ingredients of the aforesaid offences are duly proved in accordance with law by the prosecution. So to say, simply because there are some words being used by the accused persons, that do not mean that, there is violation of the provisions of aforesaid SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989. The dispute was with regard to the cultivation of the Government land. The Government had also warned not to cultivate the Government land because of High Court order which is admitted by the witnesses. There may be some dispute with regard to the cultivation of the landed property belongs to the Government and complainant has utterly failed to prove the ingredients of the offences so alleged against the accused persons. - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 When PW.1 and PW.2 deposed that, such an incident has taken place, but PW.1 never says that, PW.2 accompanied her and PW.2 never tells that, PW.1 was with her and other witnesses says that PW.1 was alone at the time of alleged incident. According to the evidence brought on record, PW.2 came running to see the said galata etc., Thus, the very occurrence of the incident is not duly proved in accordance with law. None of the witnesses have spoken before the Court that, really such an incident in the manner had taken place as alleged in the complaint. Even evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 is full of improvement, embellishment and exaggeration. PW.1 tells that, she had taken Rs.25,000/- from the Government after filing the complaint and a receipt to that effect has been given to the police by her. Thus, if such inconsistent evidence is placed on record by the prosecution, such evidence cannot be termed as trustworthy evidence, which is to be accepted by the Court. - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 29. The learned Trial Court though discussed the evidence during the course of its discussion, but has wrongly come to the conclusion that, the prosecution has proved its case. In view of the inconsistent evidence spoken by the witnesses with exaggeratory evidence, it can never be stated that, prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. When such incident is not duly proved in accordance with law, a doubt arising in the case of prosecution and that benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused persons. 30. The learned Trial Court has not properly assessed the evidence in proper perspective. PW.1 to PW.3 are the interested witnesses. Though 200 peoples were very much available in the panchayat, when the incident took place, none of the independent witnesses are cited as a witness or examined by the prosecution. It was fatal to the case of prosecution. In a case of present nature, independent corroboration is quite necessary from - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 independent witnesses, so as to believe the story stated by PW.1 and PW.2, but it is not so in this case. 31. In the absence of acceptable evidence, it can never be stated that, the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In view of all these factual features coupled with the inconsistencies, discrepancies and material contradictions, there arise a doubt in the case of the prosecution and that benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused persons. Thus, the findings of the Trial Court finding the accused guilty has to be interfered by this Court. As this Court is the First Appellate Court can very well re- appreciated the evidence. Hence, the points raised supra has to be answered in the affirmative and consequentially the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set- aside. 32. Resultantly, I pass the following: - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC:15547 CRL.A No. 500 of 2013 ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment dated 27.04.2013 passed in Special Case No.5/2010 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga is hereby set- aside. (iii) Consequentially, accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 named in the appeal memo are acquitted of the charges under Sections 143, 147, 341, 504, 506, 354 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 7(3) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. (iv) The bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled and they are set at liberty. (v) Send back the Trial Court Records along with the copy of the judgment. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM