- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1143 CRL.A No. 436 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 436 OF 2011 BETWEEN: 1. SHIVARAJU S/O SANNAPPAJI GOWDA AGED 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL WORK, R/O WODEYARA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, HARNAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT 2. MAREGOWDA S/O SANNAPPAJI GOWDA AGED 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL WORK, R/O WODEYARA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, HARNAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT 3. SIDDARAMEGOWDA S/O APPAJI GOWDA AGED 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL WORK, R/O WODEYARA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, HARNAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT 4. VRUSHABENDRA S/O KALEGOWDA AGED 40 YEARS, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1143 CRL.A No. 436 of 2011 OCC: AGRICULTURAL WORK, R/O WODEYARA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, HARNAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI R.B. ANEPPANAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BETTADAPURA POLICE 2. SRI. MADESH S/O ARASABHOVI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT WODEYARA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, HARNAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 5/07.04.11 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL.S.J. AND SPL.COURT UNDER SC & ST (POA) ACT, 1989, MYSORE IN SPL.C.NO.49/09 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 448, 323, 324, 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) OF SC & ST ACT, 1989, AND ETC., THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1143 CRL.A No. 436 of 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri R.B. Aneppanavar, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned HCGP for the State. 2. Appellants are the accused who suffered the order of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and sentenced as under: "Accused No.1 to 4 are directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under section 448 R/W Sec.34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, they are directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. Accused No.1 to 4 are directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under section 323 R/W Sec.34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, they are directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. Accused No.1 to 4 are directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 506 R/W Sec.34 of IPC. Accused No.1 to 4 are directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of SC&ST (POA) Act, 1989 and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1143 CRL.A No. 436 of 2011 they are directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, they are directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. Accused No.1 to 4 are directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of SC&ST (POA) Act, 1989 and they are directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, they are directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. Out of the aforesaid fine amount collected from accused No.1 to 4, Rs.5,000/- each shall be paid to PW 1 and PW 2, the victims, as compensation as provided under section 357 of Cr.P.C. The imprisonment already undergone by accused shall be given set off as provided under section 428 of Cr.P.C. and proviso to Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. MO 1 and MO 2 (Rod and Chopper) shall be confiscated to the Government after appeal period is over and if appeal is preferred, after disposal of appeal. Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused immediately." 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under: A complaint came to be lodged by Sri Madesha S/o Arasa Bovi, resident of Hosahalli Village, Periyapatna Taluk, Mysuru - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1143 CRL.A No. 436 of 2011 District, with the Sub-inspector of Police, Bettadapur Police Station. The complaint averments reveal that on 05.03.2009 at about 3.00 A.M., all the accused persons arrived near the house of the accused armed with deadly weapons like iron rod, machete and also equipped with petrol and woke up the complainant from sleep by raising voices. The complainant opened the window of the house and from there he enquired accused persons why they have come near his house and picking up the quarrel. Accused persons replied that son of the complainant has complained with the higher officials with regard to the land dispute and abused the complainant with the words ' ªÀಾ ನನ ಮಗೕ'. 4. They also informed him that if he continues to complain against them, they would throw petrol on his house and lit the fire. They high handedly broke open the bolt of the door and assaulted his wife and children and gave them life threat. Complainant raised alarm. On hearing the hue and cry, neighbour by name Mallesha and his wife Jayamma came there and pacified the quarrel and therefore, complainant sought for action against accused. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1143 CRL.A No. 436 of 2011 5. Based on the said complaint, police registered the case in Crime No.24/2009 for the aforesaid offences and investigated the matter. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed by the Bettadapura Police. On receipt of charge sheet, learned Special Judge took cognizance and summoned accused persons. Accused persons appeared before the Court and engaged services of an advocate and thereafter, charges were framed for the aforesaid offences. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 6. In order to prove guilt of the accused, as many as 11 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 11 and seven documents were placed on record as Exhibits P1 to P7 comprising of complaint, mahazar, demand register extract, wound certificate, FIR and caste certificate of the complainant. Prosecution also placed on record two material objects namely iron road and chopper as M.O.1 and 2. 7. In the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, the improvements made by the prosecution witnesses which are to be treated as contradictory statements have been elicited. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1143 CRL.A No. 436 of 2011 8. In the cross-examination of PW.10, who is the PSI, who registered the case on the basis of Ex.P.1, it has been elicited that in Ex.P.1, there are no abusive words namely 'ೂೕ ಮಗೕ and ಸೂ ಮಗೕ'. 9. In cross-examination of Smt.Jayamma, who is the wife of Sri.Mallesha, who is said to have pacified the quarrel, she has stated that, a day earlier to 05.03.2009, accused Nos.1 to 3, Harisha and Nagaraju had quarreled with the complainant and others near the land held by the complainant. She has stated that on 05.03.2009, at about 3.00 A.M., on hearing hue and cry, herself and her husband visited near the complainant and by then accused persons broke open the main door and had trespassed into the house of the complainant and she has raised alarm well right and other neighbours gathered there and quarrel was pacified. 10. In the cross-examination of PW.2-Manjula, wife of the complainant, she had specifically answered that M.O.1 and 2 were snatched from the hands of the accused and she handed over the same to the police. The complainant also gave contradictory answer in his cross-examination - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1143 CRL.A No. 436 of 2011 11. Thereafter, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded wherein accused persons have denied all the incriminating materials but did not choose to examine any witness on their behalf nor placed any written submission as is contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C 12. Thereafter, learned Special Judge heard the parties and after considering oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra. 13. Being aggrieved by the same, all the accused persons have filed the present appeal. 14. Sri R.B.Aneppanavar, learned counsel for the appellants, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that, to attract the offences alleged against the accused persons, no ingredients are established by the prosecution and the same has not been properly appreciated by the learned Special Judge resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeal. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1143 CRL.A No. 436 of 2011 15. Per contra, Sri Channappa Erappa, learned HCGP supports the impugned judgment by contending that material witnesses including Smt.Jayamma, wife of Mallesha, who pacified the quarrel have supported the case of the prosecution in toto. Therefore, judgment of conviction and order of sentence needs no interference by this Court in this appeal and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 16. He has also pointed out that very fact that the quarrel has been picked up early in the morning at 3:00 A.M., itself shows that accused persons had every intention to takeaway the life of the complainant and his dependents, which has been pacified by Sri Mallesha and his wife Jayamma, who have raised alarm and other neighbours assembled there and the quarrel was pacified. But for the quarrel being pacified, the accused would have accomplished their ill object and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 17. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record. On perusal of material on record, following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether prosecution has established all necessary ingredients to attract the offences - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:1143 CRL.A No. 436 of 2011 alleged against the accused persons by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record? (ii) Whether the appellants establish before the Court that impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus, call for interference? (iii) Whether the sentence is excessive? (iv) What order? 18. In the case on hand, the acquaintance of accused persons and the complainant is not in dispute. In fact there is a civil dispute with regard to the landed property. Smt.Jayamma, Sri Mallesha and complainant have specifically deposed that there was a quarrel on previous day i.e., 04.03.2009, with regard to the land issue and in pursuance of same, on 05.03.2009, all the accused persons have assembled near the house of the complainant at about 3:00 A.M. As could be seen from the complaint averments itself, accused persons gave life threat from outside the house and the complainant did not come outside the house at that hour and he replied to them through the window. In other words, when the accused persons said to have abused the complainant with the words ' ªÀಾ ನನ ಮಗೕ' except the complainant, none else was present - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:1143 CRL.A No. 436 of 2011 in the place of incident as could be seen from the complaint averments. However, the complainant, in his oral evidence before the Court, has improved upon by making contradictory statement that the accused persons abused him with the words including the caste in abusive language. PW.10 has specifically admitted that in Ex.P.1-complaint, no abusive words are found except the word ' ªÀಾ ನನ ಮಗೕ'. 19. In order to attract the offence under Sections 3(1)(x), there must be uttering of the abusive words by taking out the caste name, so as to insult the person belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Community in public view. 20. Such an ingredient is not forthcoming in the evidence on record placed by the prosecution. As could be seen from the compliant averments the time of incident is 3:00 A.M. It is only after hue and cry made by the complainant, neighbour Mallesha and his wife Jayamma appeared there. By then the accused party had broke open the main door and entered the house. As could be seen from the evidence of the wife of the complainant, they overpowered the accused persons and took away the iron rod and machete. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:1143 CRL.A No. 436 of 2011 21. Further, as could be seen from the wound certificate, there are no blood injuries found on the body of the complainant or his wife. The Doctor who has been examined on behalf of the prosecution also admits that there was no age of the injury on the body of the complainant or his wife. In the wound certificate, there is no mention of age of the injury or colour of the injury. 22. Suggestion made to the wife of the complainant that she had a wound earlier that has been entered in Ex.P.4, is no doubt denied by her and it is a blunt injury and not even a fresh blood is oozing out from the injury. All these factors were ignored. 23. However, the fact that accused persons assembling near the house of the complainant and breaking open the lock and trespassing the house of the complainant stands established. 24. Therefore, on re-appreciation of material evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under provisions of Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is not established by the prosecution by placing cogent - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:1143 CRL.A No. 436 of 2011 and convincing evidence on record. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for an order of acquittal for the offences under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by answering the point Nos.1 and 2 partly in affirmative. 25. REGARDING POINT NO.3: In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2 as above, the sentence also needs modification inasmuch as for other IPC offences, there is no compulsory minimum imprisonment prescribed under the Statute. Therefore, point No.3 is answered partly in affirmative. 26. REGARDING POINT NO.4: in view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and accused persons are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:1143 CRL.A No. 436 of 2011 Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; (iii) For the offence punishable under Sections 448, 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, each of the accused persons are directed to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) on or before 10.02.2025 failing which, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months; and (iv) Office is directed to return Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment forthwith. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50