- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21059 CRL.A No. 1068 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1068 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: 1. KUMARANNA @ KUMARASWAMY S/O MALYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT JAJUR VILALGE KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 2. SANJU S/O KUMARANNA @ KUMARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT JAJUR VILALGE KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 3. RANGASWAMY S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT JAJUR VILALGE KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 4. GANGADHARA S/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT JAJUR VILALGE KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 5. MANI S/O SHEKARAPPA Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21059 CRL.A No. 1068 of 2013 AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT JAJUR VILALGE KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 6. MANJUNATHA S/O NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT JAJUR VILALGE KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 7. INDRAMMA W/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT JAJUR VILALGE KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KARIAPPA N.A, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARASIKERE RURAL POLICE HASSAN DISTRICT (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCE DATED 11.10.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL. S.J. AND SPL. JUDGE, HASSAN IN SPL. CASE NO.112/2011 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,323 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(x) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21059 CRL.A No. 1068 of 2013 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT The appellants being accused Nos.1 to 7 in Special Case No.112 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Hassan, are impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.10.2013, convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (for short 'the SC/ST Act'), and sentencing them to pay fine of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.1,000/- each respectively for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC and further, accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, with default sentences. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21059 CRL.A No. 1068 of 2013 2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, on 18.10.2011 at about 11.00 p.m. Sri Veerabadreshwara Swamy Temple utsava was being held. When PW.7 who belonged to scheduled caste community went to offer prayer by singing a song, the accused persons who belonged to upper caste, formed unlawful assembly and humiliated PW.7 by referring to his caste and insisted not to sing any song. When PWs.2 and 3 went to question the same, accused persons assaulted them and caused hurt. They have also abused them by referring to their caste and humiliated them in front of the public. Thereby, they have committed the offences as stated above. The police after investigation filed the charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 7 for the above said offences. 3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused. The accused denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 17, got marked Exs.P1 to 12 and identified MOs.1 to 5 in support of its contention. The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, but have not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21059 CRL.A No. 1068 of 2013 stepped into the witness box nor examined any witnesses. However, they got marked for Exs.D1 and D2 during the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. Accordingly, it has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused are before this Court. 4. Heard Sri. Kariappa N.A., learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, Additional SPP for the respondent. Peruse the materials, including the Trial Court records. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21059 CRL.A No. 1068 of 2013 "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 and to acquit them for the charges leveled against them?" My answer to the above point is in the 'affirmative' for the following: REASONS 6. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused who belonged to the upper caste, abused PWs.2 and 3 who belongs to Madiga Community - Scheduled Caste, in filthy language by referring to their caste, humiliated, assaulted, kicked them, and torn their clothes. Thereby, they have committed the offences as stated above on 18.10.2011 at about 11.00 p.m. 7. To prove this contention, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 6, who are the eye witnesses to the incident. They have not supported the case of the prosecution. PWs.2 and 3 are said to be the injured eye witnesses. PW.2 filed the first information as per Ex.P2 on 19.10.2011 by giving statement to the police at about 1.45 a.m. in the hospital. Exs.P8 and 9 are - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21059 CRL.A No. 1068 of 2013 the wound certificates pertaining to PWs.2 and 3, according to which, the injured eye witnesses have complained of pain over their shoulders, even though no obvious injuries were seen. PWs.4, 5 and 7 are the eye witnesses to the incident and they have fully supported the case of the prosecution. PW.8 is the witness to the spot mahazar - Ex.P4. PW9 is the Tahsildar who issued Caste Certificate pertaining to the injured as well as the accused. 8. PWs.2 and 3 are said to be the injured eye witnesses. PW.10 is the Doctor who examined them has deposed before the Court that he has not noticed any injuries on the person of PWs.2 and 3. He has issued the Wound Certificate only on the basis of version of PWs.2 and 3, that they are experiencing pain. Admittedly, he has not clinically examined the witnesses to confirm that they are experiencing pain as a result of the incident. It is pertinent to note that PW.7 is cited as an eye witness to the incident. He goes to the extent of saying that, PWs.2 and 3 have sustained bleeding injuries in the incident. It is an inconsistent evidence on the part of the witness. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21059 CRL.A No. 1068 of 2013 9. PW.2, during cross examination, specifically states that since about 35 years, similar galatas have been going on during Jathra of the temple. As per the Investigating Officer, about 300 persons have gathered in the festival. In such a big gathering, if there was push and pull, it cannot be said that the accused have committed the offence as stated by the prosecution. 10. PW.2 states that it was accused No.1 who abused him and PW.3 by referring to their caste. PW.9 is the Tahasildar, who has issued the Caste Certificate. He states that accused No.1 belongs to the Bestha community, which is a Scheduled Tribe. Under such circumstances, no offence would be made out against him under the special enactment. 11. Even though prosecution relies on the seizure mahazar - Ex.P3, PW.12 - the mahazar witness has not supported the case of the prosecution regarding seizure of MO Nos.1 to 3. PW.15, who is the mahazar witness to Ex.P5 has also not supported the case of the prosecution. PWs.1 and 6, who are examined as eye witnesses to the incident have not supported the case of the prosecution. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21059 CRL.A No. 1068 of 2013 12. If the contention of the prosecution regarding commission of the offence by the accused with the motive to cause hurt is considered in light of the oral and documentary evidences that are placed before the Court, the version of the prosecution is surrounded by reasonable doubt regarding the motive and commission of the offence. When two views are possible, the view that is beneficial to the accused will have to be taken into consideration. When there are hundreds of persons gathered in the festival and there was push and pull, it cannot be attributed to the accused. The benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. 13. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court based its judgment only on the versions of PWs.2 and 3 to form an opinion that the accused have assaulted and caused hurt. The Court has ignored the fact that no hurt or injury is caused to them, even as per medical evidence. 14. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21059 CRL.A No. 1068 of 2013 by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. Hence, I answer the above point in the 'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.10.2013 passed in Special Case No.112/2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Hassan, is set aside. (iii) Consequently, the accused are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. (iv) Bail bond and that of sureties shall stand cancelled. Fine amount deposited, if any, is ordered to be refunded to them after appeal period is over. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21059 CRL.A No. 1068 of 2013 Registry to send back the TCR along with copy of this judgment for information and for needful action. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BGN,AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17