- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19639 CRL.A No. 1041 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1041 OF 2012 (C) BETWEEN: 1. KENCHEGOWDA S/O. KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. MAHADEVA @ KADDI, S/O. KENCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 3. NAGARAJU S/O. THAMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT BANAGAHALLY GRAMA, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 4. ANAND S/O THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 5. DEVARAJ H.C. S/O CHIKKAVEEREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 6. RAVI S/O. BOCHEGOWDA @ CHANNAVEEREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 7. H.C KEMPEGOWDA, S/O BOCHEGOWDA @ CHANNAVEEREGOWDA, Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19639 CRL.A No. 1041 of 2012 AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 8. RAVIKUMAR S/O. MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, 9. NANDEESH H.C. S/O. NAGANNA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, APPELLANTS 4 TO 9 ARE RESIDENT OF S.I. HONNALEGERE VILLAGE, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE (AB)) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K.M. DODDI POLICE, MALAVALLI SUB-DIVISION, BY ITS CIRCLE INSPECTOR, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN SPL.C.C. NO.6/2010 DATED 24/8/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED 1 TO 9 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504 R/W.149 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(10)(14) THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULES TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 AND SEC.506 SECOND PART R/W.149 OF IPC AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19639 CRL.A No. 1041 of 2012 THIS CRL.A, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT Accused Nos.1 to 9 in Special Case No.6/2010 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, are impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.08.2012, convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504 and 506 R/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Section 3(1)(10)(14) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, 'the SC/ST Act') and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months with fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 147 r/w. 149 of the IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 months with fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 148 r/w. 149 of IPC, to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w. 149 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months with - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19639 CRL.A No. 1041 of 2012 fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w. 149 of IPC, to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w. 149 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months with fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(10)(14) of the SC/ST Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 months with fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 506 r/w. 149 of IPC, with default sentences. 2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, accused Nos.1 to 9 belong to vokkaliga community-a upper caste, whereas, the informant and the injured witnesses belong to Adikarnataka community-a Scheduled Caste. On 26.01.2010, there was a jathre at Bevinamma temple of S.I.Honalagere, K.M.Doddi. The informant and other prosecution witnesses belonging to Scheduled Caste went near the temple and as per the customs, carried Thambittu Aarathi. When one of the lady along with others tried to keep the said Thambittu Aarathi thatte before the temple, and tried to enter the temple, accused Nos.1 to 9 restrained them, abused in filthy language, assaulted with - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19639 CRL.A No. 1041 of 2012 reaper pieces, wooden clubs and hands, intentionally insulted them by referring to their caste within the public view and denied their customary rights from performing pooja in the temple. They have also threatened to burn the entire colony, criminally intimidated the members of the scheduled caste and thereby, committed the above said offences. 3. Initially PW.1-the informant filed the first information as per Ex.P1 with PW.18, who has sent it to the police station. The FIR came to be registered by PW.17 as per Ex.P12. PW.18 has drawn the spot and seizure mahazars as per Exs.P2 and 5, seized the weapons and other material objects. PW.13 is the Doctor who examined the injured eyewitnesses-PWs.2 to 6 and 10 and issued the wound certificates. PW.19 is the Investigating Officer who completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused. 4. The accused appeared before the Trial Court and denied the charges leveled against them. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 19, got marked Exs.P1 to P20 and identified material objects as MOs.1 to 4 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19639 CRL.A No. 1041 of 2012 record, but have not chosen to lead any evidence in support of their defence. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 to 9 are before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants is absent. There is no representation even when the matter was called twice. The order sheets dated 02.06.2025 and 09.06.2025 disclose that learned counsel for the appellants was directed to address his arguments and the matter was listed finally by affording an opportunity. In spite of that, there is no representation and therefore his arguments is taken as nil. 6. Heard Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record including the Trial Court records. 7. In view of the contention raised by the learned Additional SPP and on going through the materials on record, in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19639 CRL.A No. 1041 of 2012 light of the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, the point that would arise for my consideration is as under: "Whether the appellants have made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?" My answer to the above point is in the 'negative' for the following: REASONS 8. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 9 who are the appellants herein have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly to prevent PWs.1 to 12 and 15 and others from entering the temple to perform Aarathi as per customs, and have assaulted few of them with hands, reaper pieces and clubs, caused injuries, abused them in filthy language by referring to their caste with an intention to humiliate them, criminally intimidated of burning their colony and thereby committed the offences. To prove its contention, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 19. 9. PW.1-is the first informant who filed the information as per Ex.P1. The incident had occurred on 26.01.2010 at 1.30 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19639 CRL.A No. 1041 of 2012 p.m., and Ex.P1 was lodged promptly on the very same day at 4.30 p.m. without loss of any time. PW.1 has narrated in detail about the offences committed by accused Nos.1 to 9. Even though this witness has deposed regarding the overt acts committed by each of the accused, nothing has been elicited during cross-examination. 10. PWs.2 to 6 and 10 are the injured eyewitnesses and have fully supported the case of the prosecution. PWs.7 to 9, 11 and 15 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. Out of them, PWs.7 and 8 have fully supported the case of the prosecution, whereas, PWs.9, 11 and 15 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. 11. PW.13-is the doctor who examined the injured- PWs.2, 4, 5 and 10 and issued the wound certificates as per Exs.P7 to 10. Ex.P7 is the wound certificate pertaining to PW.10, according to which, he had sustained two simple injuries. Ex.P8-the wound certificate is pertaining to PW.4 who sustained one simple injury. Ex.P9-the wound certificate pertains to PW.2 who sustained one simple injury and Ex.P10- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19639 CRL.A No. 1041 of 2012 the wound certificate pertains to PW.5 who is also sustained one simple injury. 12. The witnesses have stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 have assaulted PW.10 with reaper piece and club, accused No.3 has assaulted PW.2 with hands, accused No.4 has assaulted PW.5 with reaper piece, accused No.5 has assaulted PWs.2 and 5 with hands, accused No.6 has assaulted PW.2 with hands, accused No.7 has assaulted PW.10 with hands, accused No.8 has assaulted PW.4 with hands and accused No.9 has assaulted PW.5 with hands. 13. Even though PWs.1 to 3 were partially treated hostile by the prosecution, during cross-examination these witnesses have admitted that they have given the statements before the police as confronted by the prosecutor. It is pertinent to note that the incident had occurred on 26.01.2010, but the witnesses were examined on or after 30.07.2011 i.e. after lapse of 1 1/2 years. Under such circumstances, the Court cannot expect either the injured witnesses or eyewitnesses to give a parrot like evidence regarding commission of the offence - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19639 CRL.A No. 1041 of 2012 by several persons i.e. accused Nos.1 to 9 by using MOs.1 to 4 and also hands to assault them. 14. It is well-settled proposition of law that the evidence of injured eyewitnesses stands on a higher pedestal and there must be strong reason to disbelieve their version. PWs.2 to 6 and 10 being the injured eyewitnesses have deposed regarding the overt acts committed by the accused and commission of the offences. Nothing has been elicited during their cross- examination to disbelieve their version. PW.1 is the eyewitness who filed the first information immediately after the incident and has supported the case of the prosecution. Similarly PWs.7 and 8 are also the eyewitnesses who supported the case of the prosecution. 15. In view of the evidence of these witnesses, there are corroboration of the version of the injured eyewitness with the evidence of the eyewitnesses. The case of the prosecution, and the version of the eyewitnesses is also supported by Exs.P7 to 10-the wound certificates, which disclose that, immediately after the incident, the injured were taken to the hospital. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19639 CRL.A No. 1041 of 2012 PW.13-the doctor had examined them and issued wound certificates as per Exs.P7 to 10. 16. It is not in dispute that PW.1 and other witnesses belong to Adikarnataka community, which is a scheduled caste. It is also not in dispute that accused Nos.1 to 9 belongs to Vokkaliga community. The witnesses have specifically stated that the accused have abused them in filthy languages by referring to their caste, intentionally humiliated them, and they were prevented from entering the temple to perform pooja and also criminally intimidated them. After considering these materials on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused are liable for conviction. 17. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The Trial Court has taken into consideration the materials on record in proper perspective and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'negative' and I proceed to pass the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19639 CRL.A No. 1041 of 2012 ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Registry to send back the original records along with copy of this judgment to the Trial Court to secure the presence of the accused to issue conviction warrant, if not already issued. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26