- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24784 CRL.A No. 1045 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1045 OF 2023 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: SRI. HEMANTH S/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT BARAGENAHALLI SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 123 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DABASPETE POLICE STATION NELAMANGALA TALUK, NELAMANGALA SUB DIVISION BENGALURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. JABIULLA @ JABI S/O RAFIQ AHAMMED AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDENT OF NANNESABRA PLAYA, BARAGENAHALLI SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 123 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 SRI. AHAMED S.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2023 ORDER TO DISCHARGE OF Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24784 CRL.A No. 1045 of 2023 RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.302 OF IPC R/W SEC.3(2)(5) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 AND IN SPL.C.NO.902/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE DISCHARGE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2/ACCUSED. THIS CRL.A, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant being the informant in Special Case No.902/2021 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru, is impugning the order dated 13.04.2023 passed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., discharging respondent No.2-accused for the offences punishable under Section 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the SC/ST Act), while assigning the case to the appropriate Court. 2. Heard Sri Kashinath J.D, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned ASPP for respondent No.1 - State, Sri. Ahamed S.N., learned counsel for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24784 CRL.A No. 1045 of 2023 respondent No.2. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the points that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the appellant has made out a case to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court discharging respondent No.2 for the offence under section 3(2)(v)of the SC/ST Act?" My answer to the above point is 'in the negative' for the following: REASONS 4. It is the contention of the prosecution as per Cl.No.17 of the charge sheet, that on 12.10.2021 the first incident had taken place at 9.45 pm., in the matter of bringing liquor, as the accused had insisted the deceased to bring the liquor. Later at 10.30 pm., the accused had again referred to the deceased and insisted him to bring liquor and also abused him about his relationship with other women. CWs.15 and 16 came to the spot and pacified the situation. It is the further contention of the prosecution that, at 11.00 pm, the accused was fully - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24784 CRL.A No. 1045 of 2023 drunk and came to the deceased, abused him in filthy language, by referring to his caste with an intention to humiliate him, later he slapped the deceased. As a result of which, he fell down on the granite slab, sustained fatal injuries and died. 5. On going through the charge sheet, it is clear that CWs.15 and 16 are the eye-witnesses to the second incident that had occurred at 10.30 pm., CW.17 is the eye-witness to the first incident that had taken place at 9.45 pm. But there are no eye-witnesses to the incident that had taken place at 11.00 pm. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused had abused the deceased referring to the caste and humiliated him, but there are no witnesses to speak about commission of the offence under the special enactment by the accused. Taking note of the same, the Trial Court discharged the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Trial Court. 6. Under Section 227 of Cr.PC., the Court is required to consider the records of the case and the documents submitted therein. After hearing the submission of the accused - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24784 CRL.A No. 1045 of 2023 and the prosecution, if it finds that there are no sufficient ground for proceedings against accused, he shall be discharged. 7. In the present case, except the say of the informant, who is admittedly not the eye-witness to the incident where the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act said to have been committed by the accused, states about the same, but none of the other witnesses speak about such offence. Under such circumstances, the contention of the prosecution that the accused had committed the offence under the Special enactment cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. 8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment for information. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH