- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1257 CRL.A No. 100127 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100127 OF 2015 (C) BETWEEN: IRANAGOUDA RAMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: LAKKUNDI VILLAGE, TALUK: BAILHONGAL, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NESARAGI POLICE STATION, BELGAUM REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTIOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS AND TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE RECORDED BY THE SPL. JUDGE (III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE), BELAGAVI, IN SPL.C.NO.97/2012, THEREBY CONVICTING THE APPELLANT FOR THE O/P/U/S 504 OF IPC AND SENTENCING HIM TO SUFFER SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, FURTHER CONVICTING HIM FOR THE PUNISHABLE UNDER S.324 OF IPC AND SENTENCED TO UNDER S.I. FOR ONE YEAR AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.3000.00, WITH A DEFAULT CLAUSE, FURTHER CONVICTING HIM FOR THE O/P/U/S 506 OF IPC AND SENTENCED TO UNDER S.I. FOR SIX MONTHS, THE APPELLANT CONVICTED FOR THE O/P/U/S 3(1)(x) OF SC/ST PA ACT, 1989 AND SHALL UNDERGO SI FOR SIX MONTHS, WITH A DEFAULT CLAUSE AND FURTHER AWARDED COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.9000 TO BE EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED AMONG PW-1 TO 3. Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.28 15:16:06 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1257 CRL.A No. 100127 of 2015 THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused, who has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.08.2012, at about 6:30 p.m., at the Lakkundi village bus stand near Taladavvankatte, the accused intentionally caused a commotion and abused CWs.1 and 3 to 5 in filthy language, intending to provoke a breach of peace. Further, it is alleged that the accused assaulted the complainant (CW-1) with the wooden handle of a sickle on his right shoulder. When CW-2 intervened to pacify the commotion, the accused allegedly caused injuries to CW-2’s hands. The prosecution further claimed that the accused bit CW-3, injuring him. The accused also allegedly made criminal threats and insulted the complainants by referring to their caste. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses (PWs.1 to 18), produced 16 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.16, and introduced a material object, the sickle, as M.O.1. After evaluating the evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1257 CRL.A No. 100127 of 2015 beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted him as per the impugned judgment and order of sentence. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-accused and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 5. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 22.08.2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the Lakkundi village bus stand. CWs.1 and 3 to 5, the alleged injured witnesses, were examined as PWs.1 to 3. In their evidence, PWs.1 to 3 reiterated the allegations in the complaint. According to the complaint, the accused assaulted CW- 1 with the wooden handle of a sickle, causing a fracture to his right shoulder. However, the wound certificate (Ex.P.13) indicates that CW-1 sustained only tenderness over the right shoulder, which was classified as a simple injury by the medical officer. Similarly, Exs.P.14 and P.15, pertaining to the injuries sustained by CWs.2 and 3, describe minor abrasions on the right palm and teeth injuries, also categorized as simple in nature. 6. PWs.4 and 5, who were cited as eyewitnesses to the incident, turned hostile during their testimony. In their cross- examinations, no evidence was elicited to substantiate the claim that the accused assaulted PWs.1 to 3 or abused them with reference to their caste. 7. The sickle (M.O.1), allegedly used in the assault, was seized one month after the incident. The spot panchanama was conducted on 21.09.2012, and the sketch was drawn on the same - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1257 CRL.A No. 100127 of 2015 date. However, the prosecution failed to produce evidence to corroborate the seizure of M.O.1 or to link the accused to the alleged assault. 8. Importantly, PW-1, the complainant, did not state in his testimony that the accused abused him with reference to his caste. Under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally insulted or intimidated the complainant with the intent to humiliate them on account of their caste. In the absence of such evidence, the conviction under this provision is unsustainable. 9. PWs.1 to 3, the alleged injured witnesses, are relatives and therefore interested witnesses. Their testimonies lack independent corroboration, as the purported eyewitnesses (PWs.4 and 5) did not support the prosecution’s case. This raises serious doubt about the credibility of the prosecution’s version and whether the incident occurred as alleged. 10. It is a well-settled principle of law that the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In cases where material contradictions, delays in the investigation, and the absence of corroborative evidence cast doubt on the prosecution’s case, the benefit of such doubt must be extended to the accused. 11. In the present case, the failure of the prosecution to examine key witnesses such as CW-5, the lack of evidence to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1257 CRL.A No. 100127 of 2015 substantiate the alleged caste-based abuse, and the absence of credible independent testimony render the prosecution’s case unreliable. The Trial Court, in convicting the accused, failed to adequately consider these significant deficiencies. 12. In light of the above, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the accused is entitled to acquittal of all charges. In the light of the above, the following: ORDER i) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.07.2015 passed in Special Case No.97/2012 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi, is hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted of all the offences alleged against him. iii) Bail bonds executed, if any, stands cancelled Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS CT:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33