- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30141 CRL.A No. 192 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 192 OF 2014 BETWEEN: 1. SMT SARVANAMMA @ SARVAMANGALA, W/O NEELAKANTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. SRI.N.P.NAGARAJU @ NAGASHETTY, S/O PARVATHASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING NEERAGUNDA VILLAGE, GANDASI HOBLI, ARISKERE TALUK-573 101 HASSAN DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G.M. SHARATH KUMAR FOR SRI. CHETHAN B, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GANDASI POLICE STATION, ARISKERE TALUK-573 101 HASSAN DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:26.2.14 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, HASSAN IN SPL.C.NO.107/2008 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30141 CRL.A No. 192 of 2014 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 324 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(X)OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.2024 passed in S.C.No.107/2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hassan (for brevity, "the learned Sessions Judge"), whereby learned Sessions Judge convicted accused No.1 i.e., appellant No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity, "the 1989 Act") and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30141 CRL.A No. 192 of 2014 imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the 1989 Act and, also convicted accused No.2-appellant No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that - On 07.06.2008 at about 5 p.m. at Neeragunda Village, when PW.2 - Rudresha went to fetch water in the borewell, accused No.1/appellant No.1 picked up a quarrel with PW.2 - Rudresh in respect of drawing water from the borewell and abused him by mentioning his caste and kicked the pot and later she slapped PW.2. At that time, accused No.2 came and assaulted PW.2 with M.O.1-stick on his right thigh and accused Nos.3 to 5 joined accused Nos.1 and 2 and abused PW.2 by mentioning his caste. At that time all the villagers nearly 26 person gathered - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30141 CRL.A No. 192 of 2014 in the said spot facilitated accused Nos.1 to 5 to assault the victim-PW.2. Thus, PW.1 - maternal aunt of PW.2 lodged a complaint before the respondent - Police against 31 persons as per Ex.P1 on 09.06.2008. On the strength of Ex.P1, PW.16 - PSI registered a case in Crime No.93/2008 dated 09.06.2008 against 31 persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 323, 324 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x),(xiii) of the 1989 Act as per Ex.P7 - FIR. 3. Subsequently, PW.17 conducted investigation and laid the chargesheet against five accused persons by arraigning appellants herein as accused Nos.1 and 2 before the Sessions Court. After securing the presence of accused, learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offence and framed charges against accused for the aforementioned offences and read over the same to them. However, accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30141 CRL.A No. 192 of 2014 4. To prove the charges leveled against the accused before the Sessions Court, the prosecution has examined, in all, 17 witnesses as PWs.1 to 17 and got marked 10 documents as Exs.1 to 10 and also identified the material object - stick as M.O.1. 5. On completion of prosecution evidence, learned Sessions Judge recorded the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 6. The accused neither choose to examine any witnesses, nor produced any documents on their behalf. 7. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 as stated supra and acquitted accused No.3 to 5 in the impugned judgment. 8. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged by accused Nos.1 and 2 before this Court in this appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30141 CRL.A No. 192 of 2014 9. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the judgment under appeal suffers from perversity and illegality since learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective. He contended that the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 who are closely related to each other and there are material contradictions and omissions in their evidence. As such, their testimony cannot be relied to prove the charges leveled against the accused. 10. He further contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint - Ex.P.1. Though the alleged incident took place on 07.06.2008, the complaint - Ex.P.1 was lodged on 09.06.2008 i.e., after lapse of two days. Though it is alleged in the complaint that PW.2 has sustained bleeding injuries due to alleged assault made by the accused, PW.2 had taken treatment as an out-patient on the following day of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30141 CRL.A No. 192 of 2014 the incident i.e., on 08.06.2008 before PW.12. Hence, a doubt arises as to the genesis of the crime. 11. He also contended that except the testimony of interested witnesses - PWs.3 to 6 i.e., the relatives PWs.1 & 2, the other independent witnesses turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. He also contended that recovery of M.O.1 at the instance of accused is not proved since PWs.10 and 11, the mahazar witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution case. 12. He further contended that at the time of incident, there was a civil dispute between the husband of accused No.1 and the brother-in-law of PW.1 in OS.Nos.343/2001 and 21/2003. As such, a false case has been filed against the accused by the complainant by giving a criminal colour to the civil dispute. According to the learned counsel, this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30141 CRL.A No. 192 of 2014 Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment. 13. Per contra, learned HCGP contended that judgment under this appeal does not suffer from any perversity or illegality, since learned Sessions Judge, after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record, passed a well reasoned judgment. 14. He also contended that the prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt since the injured and other eyewitnesses to the incident i.e., PWs.1 to 6 have supported the case of the prosecution. 15. According to learned HCGP, the delay of two days in lodging the complaint was due to the reason that PW.1 being a rustic villager and illiterate lady, does not have the knowledge of consequences of delay in lodging the complaint and that PW.2 was also injured and was under treatment on the following day of the incident. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30141 CRL.A No. 192 of 2014 16. He also contended that the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 is consistent and corroborates with each other and hence, there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony. 17. He further contended that the evidence of PW.2, the injured corroborates to the testimony of PW.12 - Doctor, who examined PW.2 and also issued Ex.P5 - wound certificate. In such circumstances, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, the impugned judgment does not warrant interference. 18. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned HCGP and also on perusing the entire evidence on record including the impugned judgment, the following points arise for consideration: 1. Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30141 CRL.A No. 192 of 2014 from perversity or illegality? 2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants/accused for the aforesaid offences? 19. As could be gathered from records, in order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 6. Among these witnesses, PW.2 is the injured, who sustained abrasions and swelling on his right thigh due to the alleged assault. PW.1, being the maternal aunt of PW.2, lodged the complaint on 09.06.2008 as per Ex.P1 stating that on 07.06.2008 when PW.2 went to Neeragunda Village to fetch water from the borewell, accused No.1 picked up a quarrel with him and assaulted him by mentioning his caste. Thereafter, accused No.2 also joined - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30141 CRL.A No. 192 of 2014 accused No.1 and assaulted PW.2 with M.O.1 - stick. It is further stated that some 31 persons gathered there and all of them, threatened and abused the complainant-PW.1 and PW.2 by mentioning their caste. 20. Based on the said complaint, FIR came to be registered by PW.16 against 31 persons. Strangely, after investigation, PW.17 laid chargesheet against only five accused persons arraigning appellants herein as accused Nos.1 and 2. 21. To prove that PWs.1 and 2 belonged to scheduled tribe caste, the prosecution has examined PW.13 - Tahsildar and produced the caste certificate Ex.P6. Even otherwise, the said aspect is not seriously disputed by the accused. 22. PW.1 - complainant reiterated the assertion made in the complaint in her evidence. On careful perusal of cross-examination of PW.1, it is seen that her house - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30141 CRL.A No. 192 of 2014 is situated nearly 80 meters away from the place of incident and when she reached the scene of incident, there were 30 persons gathered and she saw some persons were assaulting PW.2. Further, though she denied the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the accused that there was a civil dispute pending between her brother-in-law and the husband of accused No.1 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.172/1, the learned counsel for the accused- appellants submitted the copy of the judgment passed in RSA.2790/2011 c/w. RSA.2791/2011 disposed of on 25.07.2013 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 23. A perusal of the said judgment reveals that there were civil disputes pending between the brother-in- law of PW.1 and the husband of accused No.1 in O.S.No.343/2001 and O.S.No.21/2003 i.e., at the time of alleged incident. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30141 CRL.A No. 192 of 2014 24. PW.2 - injured also deposed similarly as that of PW.1 and stated that on the date of incident, accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted him and accused No.1 abused him by mentioning his caste. According to him, accused used club, sticks and sickle to assault him. Further, though it is alleged in the complaint that PW.2 has sustained bleeding injuries due to alleged assault made by the accused, PW.2 had taken treatment as an out-patient on the following day of the incident i.e., on 08.06.2008 before PW.12. Even according to PW.12-Doctor, PW.2 visited the hospital on the following day of the alleged incident i.e., on 08.06.2008. Hence, a doubt arises as to the genesis of the crime. 25. PW.12 - Doctor, who examined PW.2 issued wound certificate Ex.P.5. As per said wound certificate, it is seen that PW.2 has sustained only some abrasions and swelling on his right thigh and except that, there were no bleeding injuries sustained by PW.2 as - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30141 CRL.A No. 192 of 2014 deposed by him. PW.12 also admitted the said aspect in his evidence. Even otherwise, the Doctor- PW.12 has not intimated the same to the police or registered a medico legal case. These aspects of the matter create a doubt in the version of PWs.1 and 2 about the very incident itself. 26. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellants, PW.1 lodged the complaint after lapse of 2 days i.e., on 09.06.2008 and there is no explanation whatsoever forthcoming in the evidence on record as to the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint - EX.P1. 27. It is vehemently contended by learned HCGP that PWs.3 to 6 supported the case of the prosecution. I have carefully examined the evidence of PWs.3 to 6. These witnesses are the close relatives of PWs.1 and 2. Nevertheless, the Investigating Officer has recorded their statement after lapse four days from the date of incident. If they were really present on - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30141 CRL.A No. 192 of 2014 the scene of incident, they would have informed the same to the Police immediately. Further, even after registering of FIR also their statement recorded after 2 days. On careful perusal of their testimony, it is seen that all these witnesses have categorically admitted in their cross-examination that by the time they reached the spot of incident, the incident had already occurred and there were 20 to 30 persons gathered in the alleged scene of incident. Further, there are material contradictions in the testimony of these witnesses in respect of incident is concerned. Though PW.2 categorically stated that accused used weapons like clubs, sticks and sickle, except M.O.1- stick, no other weapons were seized by the Investigation Officer. 28. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellants, the seizure of M.O.1 - stick was also not proved by the prosecution since mahazar witnesses - PWs.10 and 11 totally turned hostile to the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30141 CRL.A No. 192 of 2014 prosecution case. Hence, Ex.P4 recovery mahazar is not proved by the prosecution. 29. The other independent witnesses - PWs.7 and 8 totally turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the statement of PW.2 i.e., the injured was recorded after lapse of nearly two months from the date of incident i.e., 07.06.2008. There is no such explanation offered by the Investigating Officer for the delay in recording the statement of the injured when the injured was very much available immediately after lodging of complaint or subsequently, at the time of investigation. This aspect of the matter once again creates a doubt about the genesis of crime. 30. Further, though PWs.1 and 2 denied about the pendency of civil dispute between the husband of accused No.1 and the brother-in-law of PW.1, a perusal of judgment passed in RSA.2790/2011 c/w. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30141 CRL.A No. 192 of 2014 RSA.2791/2011 disposed of on 25.07.2013 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, reveals that as on the date of incident there were civil disputes pending between them in OS.Nos.343/2001 and 21/2003. In such circumstances, the fact that PWs.1 and 2 in order to give a criminal colour to the civil dispute foisted a false case against the accused cannot be ruled out. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge. 31. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and sentence. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the 'affirmative' and point No.2 in the 'negative' and proceed to pass the following : ORDER i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 26.02.2014 passed by - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30141 CRL.A No. 192 of 2014 the Additional Sessions Judge at Hassan in S.C.No.107/2008 is hereby set aside. iii) Consequently, the appellant - accused No.1 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the 1989 Act and accused No.2 is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. iv) The bail bond executed by the appellants-accused Nos.1 and2 shall stand cancelled. v) If the appellant - accused Nos.1 and 2 have deposited any fine amount, the same shall be refunded to them on their due identification. vi) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the concerned Court along with the certified copy of this judgment forthwith. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35