- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:899 CRL.A No. 3604 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3604 OF 2012 (A) BETWEEN: SMT. YALLAVVA D/O VASAPPA CHORI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: STAFF NURSE, OLD HOSPITAL, NEAR DHO OFFICE, SHIVAJI CHOWK, BIJAPUR-586101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI HULEPPA HEROOR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE THROUGH ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA. 2. SHOBHA D/O LAXMANAPPA NYAMAGOUDAR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: NURSE IN GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, BIJAPUR. 3. MANJULA S/O LAXMANAPPA NYAMAGOUDAR, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: NURSE IN GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, BIJAPUR. 4. LATHA S/O ASHOK SANSHI AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: NURSE IN GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, Digitally signed by SHIVAKUMAR HIREMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:899 CRL.A No. 3604 of 2012 BIJAPUR, ALL R/O. GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL NURSE QUARTERS, BIJAPUR …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR R1; SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 372 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO (A) PERUSE AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 IN THE SPECIAL CASE NO.40/2009 DELIVERED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE AND II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIJAPUR. (B)CONVICT THE ACCUSED / RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 504, R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC AND FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(x) OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES AND (PREVENTION OF ATROCITY) ACT, 1989 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) The de-facto complainant is before this Court under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.03.2012, passed by the Court of Special Judge/II Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur (for short ‘Trial Court’) in Special Case No.40/2009, wherein, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:899 CRL.A No. 3604 of 2012 respondent Nos.2 to 4 have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and also learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 3. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein were charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences by Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Vijayapur. The appellant and respondent Nos.2 to 4 were all working as nurses in District Government Hospital, Vijayapur as on the date of the alleged incident. The allegations against respondent Nos.2 to 4/accused is that on 03.06.2009 at about 1.30 p.m., accused had picked up quarrel with de-facto complainant regarding collecting water from a water tap and had abused her using filthy language touching her caste and had intentionally insulted her. In the said proceedings, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:899 CRL.A No. 3604 of 2012 accused after appearing before the Trial Court had claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution in order to substantiate its charges against respondent Nos.2 to 4/accused had examined in all ten charge sheet witnesses as PW.1 to PW.10 and got marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13. On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence was led, however, two documents were got marked as Exs.D1 and D2. Thereafter, the Trial Court heard the arguments addressed on both sides and by judgment and order dated 27.03.2012, acquitted respondent Nos.2 to 4/accused for the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant/de-facto complainant is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant having reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum submits that the Trial Court was not justified in acquitting the accused/respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein since the material evidence available on record prima facie makes - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:899 CRL.A No. 3604 of 2012 out a case for the charge sheeted offences. He submits that the Trial Court has erred while appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed before it and thereby has committed an error in acquitting the accused/respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4/accused has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order and prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. The de-facto complainant has been examined in the present case as PW.1. PW.2 and PW.4 are said to be the panch witnesses for spot panchanama – Ex.P2 and PW.3 and PW.6 are said to be eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. PW.5, PW.7 and PW.8 are also eyewitnesses to the incident in question. PW.9 is the Tahsildar and PW.10 is the Investigating Officer in the present case. Ex.P1 is the complaint submitted by PW.1, based on which FIR was registered against accused for the alleged offences. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:899 CRL.A No. 3604 of 2012 Though the alleged incident had taken place on 03.06.2009, the first information was submitted only on 05.06.2009. In the first information, the date has been mentioned in the hand writing of PW.1 as 05.06.2009. Explanation was sought to be given by PW.1 that though she had approached the police on 03.06.2009, the police had not received her complaint and subsequently on 05.06.2009, they had received the complaint. The Trial Court has not believed the same for the reason that the husband of PW.1 was a police constable working in the very same Police Station and therefore, it becomes doubtful that her complaint was not received in the Police Station. In addition to the same, in the first information, the date of complaint is mentioned as 05.06.2009 and therefore, it becomes doubtful that on 03.06.2009 itself the complainant had approached the police. The delay in approaching the police for registration of FIR is therefore not properly explained in the present case. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:899 CRL.A No. 3604 of 2012 8. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence of PW.1, who is the de-facto complainant, PW.3 and PW.6, who are alleged eyewitnesses, has held that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.6, with regard to the spot of crime and therefore a serious doubt arises about the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses at the spot of crime. PW.5, PW.7 and PW.8, who are other eyewitnesses to the incident in question, have not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, they have been treated as hostile witnesses. PW.2 and PW.4, who are panch witnesses to the spot panchanama also have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. It is under these circumstances, the Trial Court has proceeded to acquit the accused/respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the charge sheeted offences, holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 9. It is trite that the judgment and order of acquittal cannot be lightly interfered in an appeal, unless - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:899 CRL.A No. 3604 of 2012 the same is found to be perverse in nature or has been passed without properly appreciating the material evidence placed before the Court. In the case on hand, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, which calls for interference by this Court. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE SRT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42 CT:PK