- 1 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100314 OF 2021 (A) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, HANGAL POLICE STATION, HAVERI DISTRICT, THROUGH THE HIGH COURT GOVT. PLEADER, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH-580001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.) AND: 1 . MANJAPPA S/O. HANUMANTAPPA SURALESHWAR AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREKANAGI, TQ. HANAGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581128. 2 . SMT. NIMBAVVA W/O. MANJAPPA SURALESHWAR AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HIREKANAGI, TQ. HANAGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581128. 3 . SHRI. MANJAPPA S/O. SHANKRAPPA DODDAKURUBAR AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREKANAGI, TQ. HANAGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581128. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 4 . SHRI. CHIKKAPPA S/O. SHANKRAPPA DODDAKURUBAR AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREKANAGI, TQ. HANAGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581128. 5 . SHRI. CHETAN S/O. MANJAPPA SURALESHWAR AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREKANAGI, TQ. HANAGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581128 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C. 1973, PRAYING TO, GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 23.10.2020 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HAVERI IN SPL.SC/ST.NO.16/2018 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 23.10.2020 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HAVERI IN SPL.SC/ST.NO.16/2018 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 354(b), 504, 506 R/W. SECTION 149 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (PA) AMENDMENT ACT 2015. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 24.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 23rd October 2020 passed in Spl. (SC/ST) Case No.16 of 2018 by the I Additional District and Sessions, Judge and Special Judge at Haveri (for short, hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per the status and rank before the trial Court. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that, the Deputy Superintendent of Police Shiggaon, submitted charge-sheet against accused for offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 354-B, 504, 506, read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST (PoA) Act”). 4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 24th January 2018 at about 6.00 pm at Hirekanagi Village, the complainant has brought mud in a tractor for construction of house, and after unloading the same, while the driver was taking the - 4 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 tractor reverse, the tractor hit to a wooden peg fixed in front of the house of accused 1, 2 & 5 and it got damaged, due to which accused by forming an unlawful assembly, holding deadly weapons, with a common object, abused the complainant in filthy language by taking her caste and insulted her. When complainant advised them not to abuse in such words, the accused No.3 assaulted the complainant with stick on her right hand and left leg. The complainant suffered fracture of right hand. Accused No.4 outraged her modesty by trying to pull her clothes and accused No.5 dragged her by holding her tuft. When CWs.4 & 5 who are the sons of the complainant, questioned accused about their act, accused abused them also and threatened to their life and thereby committed the alleged offences. 5. After filing charge-sheet, cognizance was taken against the accused for alleged commission of offences and case was registered in Spl. (SC/ST) Case No.16 of 2018. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court framed charges against the accused for alleged commission of offences. The same were read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. - 5 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 6. To prove the case of the prosecution, fifteen witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 15, twelve documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P12 and one stick was marked as MO1. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused totally denied the evidences appearing against them, however, not adduced any defence evidence on their behalf. While recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused have stated that during election they campaigned against witness Prahlad Kalera and hence in order to harass them, the complainant has filed false complaint through Iravva. Having heard the arguments on both sides, trial Court has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, State has preferred this appeal. 7. Sri M.B. Gundawade, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, submitted that the judgment passed by the trial Court is totally illegal, arbitrary capricious unilateral and is not sustainable and liable to be set aside by convicting the accused for the offences charged against them. He would submit that the evidence of PWs1 to 12 is consistent and corroborative in all its material particulars - 6 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 and as such the trial Court ought to have answered the Points 1 to 9 in the affirmative holding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. However, the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of prosecution case and acquitted the accused, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. He submit that the court below ought to have noticed that the PWs2 & 3 supported the case of prosecution in its entirety, so also, PWs3 & 4 who are injured and also abused the complainant by taking the name of the caste and assaulted them with the club thereby fracturing the left hand of the complainant, hence committed the offence as per charge levelled against them. Evidence of PW10-Medical Officer who treated the injured and issued wound certificates as per Exhibits P8 & P9, would support the case of the prosecution. Evidence of PWs3 & 4 are all consistent and corroborative in all its material particulars and the support of evidence of PW10- Doctor, as such, there is sufficient and abundant oral as well as documentary evidence placed by the prosecution. The same has not been properly considered by the trial Court, and hence the judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the appeal. In support of his submissions, the learned Addl. SPP has relied on the judgment - 7 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 of this Court in the case of MALLAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA rendered in Criminal Appeal No.100481 of 2019 decided on 21st November 2022. 8. On the other hand, Sri Arvind D. Kulkarni learned counsel appearing for the respondent accused submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. He would submit that PW10- Doctor has not deposed anything against the accused. The age of injury is not mentioned. There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The Investigating Officer has not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure as the Investigating Officer has not submitted seizure report to the jurisdictional Magistrate at the earliest point of time. The independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. The trial Court has appreciated evidence in its proper perspective and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal and hence prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of materials on record, the following points would arise for our consideration: - 8 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 1. Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court suffers from legal infirmities requiring this court to intercede? 2. What order? 10. Our answer to the above points is as under: Point No.1: in the negative; Point No.2: as per final order Regarding Point No.1: 11. Before adverting to the actual facts of the case and appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to refer the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope and power of Appellate Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. 12. In the case of MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI & OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 676, at paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is held thus: “23. While considering the scope of power of the appellate court in an appeal against the order of acquittal, after referring to various judgments, in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007)4 SCC 415, this Court summarised the principle as under:- - 9 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence - 10 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Sessions court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Sessions court.” 13. In the case of MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS reported in 2019 SCC ONLINE 69, at paragraph 16 of the judgment it is held as under: “16. The High Court in the present case was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. In such a case, it is well settled that the High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because it opines that a different view is possible or even preferable. The High Court, in other words, should not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because two views are possible. The interference of the High Court in such cases is governed by well-established principles. According to these principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence by the Sessions court is capricious or its conclusions are without evidence that the High Court may reverse an order of acquittal. The High Court may be justified in interfering where it finds that the order of acquittal is not in accordance with law and that the approach of the Sessions court has led to a miscarriage of justice. …” 14. In the case of HARI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in 2000 SCC ONLINE 933, at paragraph 4 of the judgment, it is observed thus: - 11 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 “4. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan on the other hand contended that the power of the High Court while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal is in no way different from the power while hearing an appeal against conviction and the Court, therefore was fully justified in re- appreciating the entire evidence, upon which the order of acquittal was based. The High Court having examined the reasons of the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PWs 6 & 7 and having arrived at the conclusion, that those reasons are in the realm of conjectures and there has been gross miscarriage of justice and the mis-appreciation of the evidence on record is the basis for acquittal, was fully entitled to set aside an order of acquittal and no error can be said to have been committed. It is too well settled that the power of the High Court, while hearing an appeal against an acquittal is as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction and it had full power to re- appreciate the entire evidence, but if two views on the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal, merely because it feels that it would sitting as a Sessions court, have taken the other view. While re- appreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the learned Sessions Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of - 12 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice.…” 15. In the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KISTOORA RAM reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE 684, at paragraph 8 of the judgment it is held as under: “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 16. In the case of MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2016)10 SCC 220, at paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is observed thus: “12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a competent court after a full-fledged Sessions, and once the Sessions court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on the appellate court while dealing with the appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the power of the appellate court to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon which the order of acquittal is passed. But - 13 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 the court has to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a conclusion.” 17. We have examined the material placed before this court. Prosecution cited twenty witnesses and out of them fifteen witnesses has been examined as PWs1 to 15. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24th January 2018 at about 6.00 pm when the mud brought by the complainant for construction of house was dumped and while the tractor was being taken reverse, it hit to a wooden peg fixed in front of the house of accused 1, 2 & 5 and got damaged, due to which accused, with a common object, abused the complainant in filthy language by taking her caste and insulted her. When complainant advised them not to abuse in such words, the accused No.3 assaulted the complainant with stick on her right hand and left leg due to which the complainant suffered fracture of her right hand. Accused No.4 outraged her modesty by trying to pull her clothes and accused No.5 dragged her by holding her tuft. When CWs.4 & 5 questioned accused about their act, accused abused them also and threatened to their life and thereby committed the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, - 14 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 147, 148, 323, 326, 354-B, 504, 506, read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. 18. CW1 said to be the complainant and also victim examined as PW1. She has deposed in her evidence that CWs 4 & 5 are her children and they belong to Hindu Kalera caste, and the accused belongs to Kuruba community. They stay opposite to the house of the accused. On 24th January 2018 at 6.00 PM after unloading the mud to the house, while the tractor was being taken reverse by its driver, it hit the wooden peg belonging to the accused and it had broken. Then the accused No.1 Manjappa started to quarrel with them and abused them in filthy language. Accused 2 & 3 also abused them in a filthy language. Accused No.3 gave blow to her on her left hand and on her waist and pulled, as a result, her right hand bone got fractured. Accused No.4-Chikkappa also abused them in filthy language. Accused No.5-Chetan pulled her and assaulted. Then, CWs6 to 10 came and separated them. Later she was admitted to Hanagal Hospital. In X-ray report, it was found that there was a fracture in her hand. The elders of the village told that they will compromise the matter and hence she could not file the complaint in time. Thereafter, she lodged complaint - 15 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 with the Police as per Exhibit P1. This witness is treated as hostile witness and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court. During her cross- examination, she has admitted only as the contents of Exhibit P1 regarding hurling of abusive words by taking the name of her caste and also as to outraging her modesty. 19. CW2-Irappa Puttannanavar said to be the attester to panchanama is examined as PW2. He has deposed regarding mahazar conducted by the Police as per Exhibit P3 and rough sketch Exhibit P4 and also identification of MO1. 20. CW4-Guttappa and CW5 Manikantah Hoovappa Bengali, victims, are examined as PWs3 & 4. They have supported the case of prosecution and deposed as to the assault made by the accused as deposed by PW1. They have also deposed as to the abusive words hurled by the accused by taking the name of their caste. 21. CW6-Virupaxappa Pakeerappa Mudoor, CW7-Kuber Laxman Agasanahalli, CW8-Prahlad Udachappa Kaler, CW9- Smt. Shantavva Basavanneppa Doddamani, CW10-Smt. Sumitravva Laxman Agasanahalli, said to be the eye-witnesses to the incident, who have been examined as PWs5 to 9 - 16 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 respectively. All these witnesses have deposed in their evidence as to the scuffle between the accused and CW1. Further, they have deposed that the accused 1 to 3 have abused PW1 in filthy language and accused No.3 gave blow to PW1 on her left hand and her left leg with a stick as a result, the left hand of PW1 got fractured. Accused No.5 dragged CW1 and abused them in filthy language. Further, they shifted CW1 to hospital. All these witnesses are treated as partly hostile witnesses and were cross-examines by the Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court. During their cross- examination, PW5-Viripaxappa has categorically denied about the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is marked as Exhibit P7. He has also denied as to abusive words used by the accused by taking the name of her caste. The witnesses, though they have not whispered anything in their examination- in-chief, but during their cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, only upon suggestion by the Prosecutor as to hurling abusive words used by the accused by taking their caste, they have admitted that they have stated the same before the police. - 17 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 22. CW16-Dr. Harish has deposed in his evidence as to the treatment extended to the injured and also issuance of certificate Exhibit P8. 23. CW17-Mahabaleshappa K, Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department has deposed as to the sketch prepared as per Exhibit P10 at the request of the police. 24. CW18-Shantala Chougale, Deputy Secretary who was working as Thahsildar examined as PW2, has deposed as to issuance of caste certificate as per Exhibit P11. 25. CW11-Abdul Babusab Aladakatti, owner of the tractor has deposed that at the relevant point of the time he was the driver of the tractor. After unloading mud, while he was taking the tractor reverse, he hit the wooden peg belonging to accused No.1 and the same got broken. But he has not deposed anything against the accused and this witness was treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. During the cross-examination also prosecution has not elicited any favourable answer from him. - 18 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 26. CW20-L.Y. Shirakola, Investigating Officer and CW19- A.R. Mundinamani, ASI, have deposed in their evidence as to their respective investigation. 27. The alleged incident is said to have occurred on 24th January 2018 at approximately 6:00 PM. However, the complaint in connection with the said incident came to be lodged only on 26th anuary 2018 at around 6:00 PM, almost a delay of 48 hours. Pursuant to this complaint, the Hanagal Police registered a criminal case in Crime No.14 of 2018 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 354-B, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The First Information Report (FIR) was submitted to the jurisdictional Court on 26th January 2018 at 9:00 PM. 28. In column 3(c) of the FIR and the complaint, the complainant has stated that immediately following the incident, she was undergoing treatment at the Government Hospital in Hanagal. She has further mentioned that she had apprised the elders of the village about the incident, and they assured her - 19 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 that the matter would be resolved through a panchayat. It is only upon the failure of the accused to attend the said panchayat that the complaint was lodged, thereby explaining the delay of two days. 29. However, the medical records paint a different picture. As per Exhibit P8, the wound certificate, it is established that PW1 was admitted to the hospital on 25th January 2018 at 12:20 PM with a history of assault. PW10, Dr. Harish, who examined PW1, corroborated the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate and also affirmed the issuance of the same. Notably, when a patient is admitted to a government hospital with injuries sustained from an assault, it is the legal obligation of the attending medical officer to treat the case as a Medico-Legal Case (MLC) and promptly inform the jurisdictional police. However, in this instance, Dr. Harish neither registered the case as an MLC nor provided any plausible justification for his inaction. 30. Furthermore, Dr. Harish, while deposing before the Court, did not attribute the injuries to any of the accused, nor did he identify any weapons allegedly used in causing the injuries. The wound certificate also fails to specify the age of - 20 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 the injuries, a crucial aspect in establishing the timeline of the alleged incident. The absence of an X-ray report further weakens the prosecution's attempt to prove the extent and severity of the injuries. This lacuna casts serious doubt over the credibility of the prosecution’s case. In this regard, the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in State v. Sheenappa Gowda & Others, reported in 2011(4) KCCR 2759, becomes relevant, wherein it was held that in the absence of an X-ray to confirm a fracture as clinically opined, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved that grievous hurt was caused. Additionally, there is no documentary evidence produced by the prosecution to prove that PW1 was admitted as an inpatient. The case sheet of the injured, which could have shed more light on the medical treatment, has not been placed on record. Also, the prosecution has failed to either name or examine the village elders who were allegedly informed of the incident and who had attempted to settle the matter in the panchayat. 31. PW3, who is the son of the complainant (PW1), has deposed that his mother was taken to the hospital two days after the incident. This piece of evidence contradicts the claim made in the complaint regarding immediate medical treatment and raises further doubt about the veracity of the prosecution’s - 21 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 case. The delay of over two days in lodging the complaint, coupled with the absence of a reasonable or medically corroborated explanation for the same, creates a substantial cloud of doubt regarding the alleged occurrence and the involvement of the accused. The inconsistencies between the medical evidence and the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as well as the lack of corroboration among them, further erode the reliability of the prosecution’s case. The cumulative effect of these infirmities supports the trial court’s finding that the benefit of doubt ought to go in favour of the accused. 32. As far as the allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, specifically Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), and 3(2)(v), are concerned, it is important to note that PW1, the primary witness, did not mention in her examination-in-chief that any caste-related abuses were hurled at her by the accused. It is only during her cross-examination, after she was declared a hostile witness by the Public Prosecutor, that she admitted to suggestions put forth regarding caste-based abuse. The Court is not expected to rely solely on admissions elicited during cross-examination, - 22 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 particularly when the witness was treated as hostile and had not supported the prosecution in the examination-in-chief. 33. Furthermore, the other key prosecution witnesses, PW2 Eshappa, PW3 Paramesha, and PW5 Virupaxappa have not deposed anything about the use of caste-based abusive language by the accused. Their silence on this vital aspect raises a serious question as to the truthfulness of the allegation under the SC/ST (PoA) Act. 34. During his cross-examination, PW7 candidly admitted that he is a member of the local Grama Panchayat and is also related to one Lingappa Kalera. Additionally, he has acknowledged that CWs 1 to 10 are his relatives. This admission suggests a possibility of bias and casts a shadow on his credibility as an impartial witness. 35. Similarly, PW3 Paramesha, who is another son of PW1, has admitted during his cross-examination that CWs 6 to 10 are his relatives. He has further acknowledged that he is a politically affiliated individual, a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party and an elected member of the Village Panchayat. He has also candidly admitted to the existence of political rivalry between the complainant (his mother) and the accused - 23 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 persons. These facts lend credence to the defence's assertion that the complaint may have been lodged out of political vendetta. The trial Court, on analyzing the evidence in its totality, has rightly observed that political animosity could have been the motivating factor behind the belated complaint and that the allegations against the accused appear to be motivated and contrived. 36. Upon a thorough re-appreciation, re-evaluation, and re-examination of the entire body of evidence placed on record, this Court finds no perversity, illegality, or infirmity in the impugned judgment rendered by the learned trial Court. The evidence lacks consistency, medical corroboration, and credibility, and is riddled with contradictions, omissions, and admissions that favour the defence. Therefore, this Court sees no ground to interfere with the trial Court’s well-reasoned decision to acquit the accused. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the negative. Regarding Point No.2: 37. For the reasons aforestated and discussions, we proceed to pass the following: - 24 - CRL.A No.100314/2021 O R D E R (i) Appeal is dismissed; (ii) The judgment of acquittal dated 23rd October 2020 passed in Spl. (SC/ST) Case No.16 of 2018 by the First Additional District and Sessions, Judge and Special Judge at Haveri is confirmed; (iii) Registry to send the trial Court records along with the copy of this judgment to the concerned Court. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn CT-CMU