- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6315 CRL.A No. 732 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 732 OF 2014 (C) BETWEEN: 1. SRI VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O SRI CHIKKEGOWDA, R/O SADUGONAHALLI, K.R.PET TALUK-571426. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANJE GOWDA S B.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY K R PET POLICE STATION REP. BY ITS SPP HIGH COURT BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN.,HCGP) THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S. 374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADV., FOR THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1. PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:4.8.14. PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN SPL.C.NO.8/2013 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(X) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND 323 OF IPC. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 6 MONTHS AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.3,000/- IN DEFAULT S.I. FOR THREE MONTHS OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(X) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989. Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6315 CRL.A No. 732 of 2014 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Accused No.1, who is the appellant herein, has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 04.08.2014 passed in Spl.C.No.08/2013 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (for short 'the trial Court'). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the Dy.S.P Srirangapatna Sub-Division, Srirangapatna submitted a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 325 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. It is alleged by the prosecution that, on 24.12.2012, when there was no supply of drinking water of Sadugonahalli in the colony of SC/ST and at around 07.30 p.m. when the accused No.1- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6315 CRL.A No. 732 of 2014 Venkatesha, who is a water supplier, was sitting near the shop of CW7-Ramesh, the complainant asked him with regard to not supplying of the water tank of their colony, accused No.1 abused the complainant as "ೊೆಯ ನನ ಮಗೇ" by taking his caste. Being aware that he belongs to Scheduled caste community, accused No.1 humiliated the complainant in public view and assaulted him on his face. CW2-Jagadeesha and CW3-Chandrakala, the son and wife of the complainant came to separate the scuffle, accused 1 to 4 quarreled with them. Accused 1 and 2 assaulted CW2 with their hands and accused No.2 assaulted CW3, fisted on her nose and caused injuries to her. Accused No.3 assaulted the complainant and consequently he fell down, and accused No.3 kicked him by causing grievous injury on the right side of his chest. Hence, the complainant has lodged a complaint. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the commission of alleged offence. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6315 CRL.A No. 732 of 2014 4. Upon hearing the charges, the trial Court has framed charges for the commission of alleged offence. Same were read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, in all ten witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 10. Twelve documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P12. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. 6. During the course of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, five documents were marked as Exhibits D1 to D5. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court has heard the arguments on both sides and acquitted accused Nos.2 to 4 for the commission of alleged offence under sections 323, 325 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6315 CRL.A No. 732 of 2014 Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and accused No.1 is acquitted of the offence under section 325 of Indian Penal Code, however, convicted accused No.1 for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and passed a sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and he is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that, the appellant is innocent. He has not committed any offence as alleged against him. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court is capricious, erroneous, arbitrary, illegal, and bad in law against the materials and evidence on record and all probabilities of the case. The prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses to substantiate the case of the prosecution. There is no - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6315 CRL.A No. 732 of 2014 cogent, convincing and clinching evidence to convict accused No.1. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and accordingly, sought to allow the appeal. 8. As against this, Sri B.Lakshman, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- State, would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following points would arise for my consideration: (1) Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused No.1/appellant for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989? (2) What order? 10. My answer to the above points as under: Point No.1 - Negative Point No.2 - As per final order. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6315 CRL.A No. 732 of 2014 11. I have examined the materials placed before this court. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.12.2012 at about 07.30 p.m. at Sadugonahalli village near shop of CW7-Ramesh, when the complainant asked the accused No.1 with regard to not supplying the water, the accused No.1 abused him in filthy language by referring his caste, being aware of the fact that he belonged to SC community and humiliated him in public view and further it is alleged that in furtherance of the common object accused 1 and 2 assaulted CW2 and CW3 with their hands when they tried to separate the scuffle and accused No.3 fisted on the nose of CW3-Chandrakala and accused No.3 kicked the complainant and caused simple hurt and grievous hurt to them. Thus, he committed an offence punishable under Sections 323, 325 r/w 34 of IPC. To prove guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined ten witnesses as PWs.1 to 10. Twelve documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to 12. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6315 CRL.A No. 732 of 2014 12. The trial Court has acquitted the accused 2 to 4 for the commission of alleged offence under Sections 323, 325 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST (POA) Act. Accused No.1 is also acquitted for the offence under Section 325 of IPC. In paragraph 18 of its judgment, the trial Court has observed as under: "18. PW9 & PW6 Dhanaraj D.P. and Kalakrishnaswami speaks with regard to the receiving of complaint, registration of the same, receiving of further investigation, visiting of the spot and conducting of spot mahazar as shown by the wife of the complainant, taking of photograph and recording of statement of witnesses and arresting of the accused and producing before the court and recording further statement of the complainant and receiving the caste report and wound certificates and submission of charge sheet and they only speaks with regard to the procedural aspects and there is no error of defect while conducting investigation. On the other hand it is found from the cross of PW6 that PW1 to 3 have not stated before her that there is no supply of water since 4 to 5 days before 24-12-2012 and taking pot in a cycle and presence of 50 persons at the spot and dragging of PW2 about 50 meters - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6315 CRL.A No. 732 of 2014 assaulting of PW1 with a stone by A3 and assaulting of PW2 & 3 by A2 & 3 and assaulting of PW3 with a stone while recording the statement of PW1 to 3, which is also serious omission amounting to contradiction. No doubt there are certain improvement with regard to the case of the prosecution in respect of the overt acts of accused No.2 to 4 in the incident. But it will not take away the abusing of PW1 by A-1 by taking his caste in a public place and humiliating him as: ೊೆಯ and assaulting him with his hands, which is clearly establish that the A-1 has committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 3 (1)(x) of SC-ST (POA) Act and 323 of IPC. It is not at all the case of the prosecution that the A-1 to 4 abused the complainant in furtherance of their common intention by taking his caste. There is a disparity in the prosecution evidence with regard to the overt acts of the A2 to 4. Hence, the accused No.2 to 4 have not assaulted and kicked PW1 to 3 and A2 not assaulted PW3 with a stone on her nose is completely false and the prosecution has failed to prove the assaulting of PW2 and 3 with their hands and kicked him with a stone and causing simple hurt and injury to PW1 to 3 as alleged by the prosecution. However, there are sufficient evidence to point out the guilt of the accused No.1, as he has assaulted PW1 with his - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6315 CRL.A No. 732 of 2014 hands and abused him by taking his caste in a public view and humiliated him as alleged by the prosecution. There are no sufficient, positive, satisfactory evidence to prove the ingredients of the guit leveled against A2 to 4 in respect of the offence U/Sec. 323, 325 R/w 34 of I.P.C. holding that there are cogent and sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the A-1 and the prosecution has established the offence U/Sec. 3 (1)(x) of SC-ST (POA) Act and 323 of 1.P.C. against the accused No.1 only. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, being discerned carefully, I am of the opinion that the evidence of PW1 to 6, 9 & 10 clearly establish the fact that on 24-12-2012 at about 7.30 PM. accused No.1 abused the PW1 in a filthy language by taking his caste as ೊೆಯ in a public place and humiliated him in a public view and assaulted him with his hands and voluntarily caused simple hurt to him holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused No.2 to 4 have assaulted PW1 to 3 with their hands and kicked PW1 and assaulted PW3 with a stone and thereby committed an offence U/Sec. 323, 325 R/w 34 of IPC as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, I answer the above points accordingly." - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6315 CRL.A No. 732 of 2014 13. In view of this finding, trial Court has acquitted the accused No.1 for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and accused 2 to 4 are acquitted for the commission of alleged offence under Sections 323, 325 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed against the accused 2 to 4 and also acquittal of accused No.1 for the offence under Section 325 IPC. 14. Now, this Court has to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to convict accused No.1 for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. In this regard, in Ex.P1-complaint, the complainant has stated that on 24.12.2012 at 07.30 p.m., near water tank, when the water Supplier Venkatesh- accused No.1 was sitting near the shop of Ramesh-CW7, PW1-Shankaraiah asked him regarding supply of drinking water, the accused No.1 abused him by referring his caste and assaulted him with his hands. Then PW2-Jagadeesh and PW3-Chandrakala came to rescue him. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6315 CRL.A No. 732 of 2014 15. PW2-Jagdish has deposed in his evidence that upon hearing the screaming of his mother, he came outside the house and found that his father was lying on the ground and 4 to 5 persons were assaulting him. 16. PW3-Chandrakala, who is the daughter-in-law of PW1, has deposed in her evidence that the accused No.1 assaulted her father-in-law, Shankaraya. PW4-Sobha Yama wife of PW1 has deposited in her evidence that the accused No.1 held the collar of her husband and made him to fall from cycle. 17. PW5-Manjula, the another daughter-in-law of PW1, has deposed in her evidence that all the four accused have assaulted CWs.1 to 3. All these witnesses have deposed in their evidence that accused No.1 has abused PW1 by referring his caste. The eye-witnesses, PW7-S.M.Ramesh and PW8-Manjunath said to be the independent witness, have not supported the case of the prosecution. During their cross-examination conducted by the learned Public - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6315 CRL.A No. 732 of 2014 Prosecutor, after treating them as hostile witnesses, PW7 has categorically denied the statement said to have been recorded by the police under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is marked as Exs.P1 and P2. 18. PW9-Dhanraj, Police Sub-Inspector, has deposed in his evidence as to arrest of the accused and submitting report and first information report to the court. 19. PWs.6 and 9, investigating officers have deposed as to their respective investigation. 20. PW 10-Dr. N.S. Champakamalini, has deposed as to the examination of the injured and issuance of wound certificate. The investigating officer who has filed the charge-sheet has not been examined by the prosecution. 21. A careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record makes it crystal clear that there is no evidence to show that the accused No.1 has abused PW1 in the presence of public. Except the interested testimonies of PWs.2 to 5, none of the independent witnesses have supported the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6315 CRL.A No. 732 of 2014 case of the prosecution to prove that the accused No.1 has abused PW1 by referring his caste. Therefore, the sole evidence of interested testimony of PWs1 to 5 is not sufficient to draw the conclusion that the accused No.1/appellant herein has committed alleged offences under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act. The contents of Exhibit P1 itself reveals that accused No.1 has not abused the PW1 with an intention to humiliate him in public view. It is the case of the prosecution that when PW1 asked as to supply of drinking water, the accused No.1 has abused him. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients to attract penal provision of offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act. 22. With regard to offence punishable under section 323 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, PWs1 to 5 have deposed in their evidence that the accused have assaulted PW1. PW1 has deposed in his evidence that accused No.1 has assaulted him with hands. But other witnesses have - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6315 CRL.A No. 732 of 2014 deposed that all the accused have assaulted PW1. There is no consistency in the evidence of PWs1 to 5 as to the assault said to have been made by the accused. The prosecution witnesses have exaggeratedly deposed against this accused. Hence, their evidence cannot be believed. Exhibit P7 is the wound certificate, in which it is stated that injured was admitted to the hospital with the history of assault by Venkatesh, Srinivas and Yogesh with hands at about 7:30 pm and he has sustained injuries to 11th, 12th and 10th rib on right side and there is tenderness. However, it is stated that there is fracture of right 10th rib. This injury is grievous in nature. The trial court has acquitted all the accused except accused No.1. The prosecution has failed to establish as to how PW1 has sustained fracture of right 10th rib. PW1 has not deposed anything in his evidence that accused No.1 has assaulted him with hands on his 11th, 12th and 10th rib. He has simply stated that accused No.1 has assaulted him with hands. There is no cogent, consistent, corroborative or - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6315 CRL.A No. 732 of 2014 clinching evidence as to the alleged assault made by accused No.1. 23. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any cogent, convincing, corroborative and legal evidence to convinct the accused for commission of alleged offences. Accordingly, the trial Court is not justified in convicting the accused No.1 for offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act. Hence, I answer the point No.1 in the negative. 24. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Appeal is allowed; ii) Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 4th August 2014, passed in Special Case No.8 of 2013 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya is set aside; - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6315 CRL.A No. 732 of 2014 iii) Appellant/accused No.1 is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of SC & SCT (PoA) Act; iv) The fine amount if any deposited by the accused, shall be returned to him in accordance with law; Registry to send trial court records along with copy of this judgment to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE DHA,LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40