- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18493 CRL.A No. 779 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 779 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: SRI. KUMARA @ MOHAN KUMARA, S/O PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT HEJJAGENAHALLY VILLAGE, AMBALE HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.J. ANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY CHIKKAMAGALUR RURAL POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADD.SPP.) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 08.07.2013 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SESSIONS AND SPL. JUDGE, CHIKMAGALUR IN SPL. CASE NO.79/2009 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 504 AND 354 OF IPC AND 3(I)(XI) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(I)(XI) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 2 MONTHS EACH FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 504 AND 354 OF IPC. ALL SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED. Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18493 CRL.A No. 779 of 2013 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 The appellant/accused is impugning the judgment dated 08.07.2013 passed in Special Case No.79/2009 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Chikmagalur, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (for short 'SC/ST Act'), sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 354 of IPC, to under go simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 3(i)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that on 18.08.2009 at 7.30 p.m., when the victim-PW1 was proceeding near bridge of the tank bund, the accused suddenly came from - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18493 CRL.A No. 779 of 2013 behind, pulled her saree, embraced her, gagged her mouth, bite her both cheeks, squeezed her breast and outraged her modesty thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 354 of IPC. It is her further contention that the accused committed the offences knowing fully aware that PW1 belongs to scheduled caste and committed the offence punishable under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Act. 4. To prove its contention, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to 11 in support of its contention. 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. Accordingly, proceeded to pass the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court. 5. Heard Sri. H.J.Ananda, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18493 CRL.A No. 779 of 2013 6. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the appellant-accused has made out a case 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' and pass the following: REASONS 7. It is the contention of the prosecution that, PW1 is the victim and she is a widow. On the date of incident at 7.30 pm., when she was proceeding at the scene of occurrence, the accused taking advantage of the situation, came from behind, caught hold of PW1, pulled her saree, bite her cheeks and squeezed her breast and also criminally intimidated. Since it was late in the evening, PW1 came to lodge the first information with the police on 19.08.2009, after getting treatment from the doctor. The victim explained the delay in lodging the complaint as there was no public transport from her village to reach the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18493 CRL.A No. 779 of 2013 police station and the hospital. The explanation appears to be very reasonable and the same is not seriously disputed by the accused. 8. PW1 - Victim has supported the case of the prosecution and deposed about the offences committed by the accused. Even though she was subjected to lengthy cross- examination, nothing has been elicited from her to disbelieve her version. There are no material contradictions in the evidence of PW1. 9. PW9 is the Doctor, who examined the victim and issued Ex.P7-wound certificate. As per this document, victim was examined on the very next date i.e., on 19.08.2009 at 9.30 a.m., and found bite marks on both cheeks with pain and tenderness over neck. The wound certificate and the evidence of PW9 fully corroborates the evidence of PW1 and supports the case of the prosecution. 10. PW2 is the brother-in-law of PW1. However, he appears to be the eye-witness to the incident. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18493 CRL.A No. 779 of 2013 11. PWs.3 and 4 are the mahazar witness to Ex.P4. PW5 is the other brother-in-law of PW1, who is only a circumstantial witness. 12. PW6 had issued Ex.P5 - the caste certificate to the effect that the victim belongs to schedule caste. PW8 is the son of PW1, who supported the case of the prosecution. 13. From these materials on record, I do not find any reason to suspect the case made out by the prosecution. On the other hand, the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is liable for conviction. 14. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. On proper appreciation of the materials on record, the Trial Court convicted the accused as stated above and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Sections 323, 504 and 354 of IPC and for six months for the offence punishable under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Act. The quantum of sentence is also reasonable and therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. In that result, I - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18493 CRL.A No. 779 of 2013 do not find any grounds to allow the appeal, either to set aside the judgment of conviction or to interfere with the quantum of sentence. 15. 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. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27