- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2151-DB CRL.A No. 2104 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2104 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAYAKONDA POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE TALUK, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP) AND: 1. SANTHOSH, S/O OBENAHALLY SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O GANGANAKATTE VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577001. 2. GANGADHARA, S/O HANUMANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O NERLIGE VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2151-DB CRL.A No. 2104 of 2024 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.PC PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 01.12.2023 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE IN SC/ST (SPL.) CASE NO.22/2019 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504 AND 506 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r), (s) AND 3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST ACT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Heard Smt. Rashmi Patel, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/State, Sri Raju C.N., the learned counsel for respondent No.1/accused and Sri S.G. Rajendra Reddy, the learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant being the victim had lodged the complaint before the Mayakonda Police, wherein in the complaint he has stated that on 23.04.2019, there was a Loka Sabha election - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2151-DB CRL.A No. 2104 of 2024 and to cast vote he and his side persons were standing outside the school where the election booth is situated, at that time, the accused came there and firstly, the accused spoke loudly about the election and thereafter started to kidding by seeing the complainant and his followers by saying that Vaddas’s. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that at about 2:30 p.m., C.W.6 came to cast the vote and then also the accused said abusive words to C.W.6 and also castigated the caste by taking their caste name. When C.W.6 questioned the same, he threatened the complainant's life. 3. Based on the complaint, case was registered by C.W.8, who is the SHO of the station and thereafter handed over the case papers to C.W.12 for further investigation and he conducted further investigation in the matter and the witnesses were taken to the Magistrate for recording of 164 statement and also he has done the formalities in collecting the documents from the concerned department and filed the charge-sheet after recording the statements of the witnesses and invoked the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2151-DB CRL.A No. 2104 of 2024 Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused was released on bail and he did not plead guilty, but claims trial. Hence, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and also got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 25. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was subjected to 313 statement and he did not cite any evidence. 4. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, comes to the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove the case considering the evidence of P.W.1, who is the victim and complainant. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the eye witnesses to the incident. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the panch witnesses. P.W.6 is also the victim. P.W.7 is the one who assisted the Investigating Officer. P.W.8 is the one who registered the case against the accused. P.W.9 is the one who has given the road details of the incident place. P.W.10 and P.W.11 are the Investigating Officers who conducted the further investigation in the matter. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, though P.W.1 and P.W.6 are the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2151-DB CRL.A No. 2104 of 2024 victims and P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the eyewitnesses to the incident, made an observation that the prosecution failed to record the statement of eyewitnesses and only recorded the statements of interested witnesses, who are the followers of C.W.6. The Trial Court also taken note of that 164 statement was recorded belatedly after 25 days and also taken note of that there is an omission on the part of both the witnesses while making 164 statement with regard to incident is concerned. 5. The Trial Court also taken note of the principles laid down in the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of NATHUNI YADAV v. STATE OF BIHAR reported in (1998) 9 SCC 238 and so also in the case of HITESH VERMA v. STATE OF UTTRAKHAND reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710. The Trial Court in paragraph No.45, taken note of that the incident was taken place in a public place and in public view and the incident was in connection with the election, but not examined any of the officials, who were deputed by the Election Commissioner at the time of the incident near the school. In paragraph No.50, it has taken note that P.W.7 helped the Investigating - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2151-DB CRL.A No. 2104 of 2024 Officer in conducting the case and in paragraph No.52 made an observation that the Investigating Officer made categorical admission that he did not record the statement of security personnel, who were present at the spot and also not examined the leaders of the villagers in order to gather the information that whether the incident was occurred on election day and the witnesses who have been quoted are the relative witnesses. In paragraph No.56, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that though the prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.6, it does not inspire the confidence of the Court. In paragraph No.54, an observation is made that on perusal of the entire evidence, it would show that P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 as well as P.W.6 have consistently deposed their testimonies before the Court, but the prosecution has not established for what reason or for what intention the accused has abused the complainant and P.W.6 as well as the prosecution has failed to explain for what purpose the accused has castigated their caste. As already noted above, when there is a direct witness, the motive not gets much importance. But when the prosecution does not examine any public or public official, who gathered at the time of the incident, then it would show that it - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2151-DB CRL.A No. 2104 of 2024 is the duty of the prosecution to prove the motive or intention behind the offence. The case of the prosecution is also the accused person kidding P.W.6, but not narrated the genesis of the incident, how it was taken place and acquitted the accused. 6. Being aggrieved by the acquittal, the present appeal is filed before this Court. 7. The main contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/State is that the Trial Court while passing the impugned order of acquittal, not considered the evidence in a proper perspective. P.W.1 – victim lodged the complaint and the contents of the complaint is very clear that the incident was taken place and there are no material inconsistencies. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are the eyewitnesses, was also not believed considering 164 statement. There cannot be full details in 164 statement when the statement was made before the Magistrate. The learned counsel submits that the Special Judge ought to have believed the evidence of P.W.6 against whom the accused abused taking the caste name and nothing is elicited from the mouth of the witnesses to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. The Trial - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2151-DB CRL.A No. 2104 of 2024 Court got carried away with the evidence of P.W.11 Investigating Officer considering his admission. Hence, it requires admission. 8. The learned counsel for respondent No.2/defacto complainant also reiterated the grounds urged by the learned High Court Government Pleader that, inspite of evidence available on record, the Trial Court not appreciated the same in a proper perspective and doubted the very case of the prosecution only on the ground that the witnesses are relative witnesses. Even relative witnesses also can be looked into by the Court. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/accused would contend that the Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, in detail discussed with regard to the incident is concerned and also taken note of inconsistencies and nothing is stated in 164 statement, which has been marked before the Trial Court with regard to the incident is concerned. There are no material with regard to any intentional abuse that too in a public view and hence, the Trial Court taken note of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2151-DB CRL.A No. 2104 of 2024 witnesses are relative witnesses and also the followers of P.W.6. The Investigation Officer has admitted that he has not at all enquired the officials, who were deputed to the place of the incident for maintaining the law and order and all these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused. 10. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, the case of the prosecution is that the incident was taken place at the time of Lok Sabha election and that too in a public place and public were also present. Having taken note of the material available on record, witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 claims to be the eyewitnesses and they are the relatives as well as followers of P.W.6. Apart from that, P.W.1 and P.W.6 claims that they are the victims. Having taken note of the material available on record, the Trial Court while acquitting the accused, taken note of the principles laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra) as well as other judgments. In the case of Hitesh Verma (supra), the Apex Court while considering the factual aspects, comes to the conclusion that if - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2151-DB CRL.A No. 2104 of 2024 the incident is taken place within the four wall, the question of involving the Special Enactment does not arise. But in the case of hand, the incident was taken place in a public place and also in a public view and the Investigating Officer has not taken any pain to examine and enquire the independent witnesses. The statement of the officials deputed for election duty by the Election Commissioner and who were present within the election booth area, was not recorded. Even the statement of the public, who were present at the spot, was also not recorded. The Trial Court also taken note that there are also witnesses and other independent witnesses, who were present at the time of the incident and no such evidence is placed on record. The Trial Court taken note of the same in paragraph Nos.32, 33, 34 and 36 and also taken note of with regard to recording of 164 statement after 25 days of the incident. 11. On perusal of the statements, which are marked as Exs.P.5 and 6, it would show that they have only stated before the Judicial Magistrate that on the particular day of the incident, the accused has threatened the life of the complainant and also castigated their caste. But both have not deposed - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2151-DB CRL.A No. 2104 of 2024 anything against the accused that on the particular day of the incident, the accused has abused C.W.6 and castigated the caste of C.W.6. The Trial Court in detail discussed in paragraph No.37 that there is an omission on the part of both these witnesses with regard to the incident is concerned and the very genesis of the incident is doubtful. The Trial Court also appreciated the witnesses evidence and all the witnesses, who have been examined, are the relative witnesses of P.W.6 and they are also the followers of P.W.6. The Trial Court in paragraph No.45 made an observation that the prosecution papers reveals that investigating officials not made any attempt to examine the officials, who were deputed by the Election Commissioner at the time of incident near to the school and those who were also present at the time of the incident and no other independent witnesses statements are recorded and examined before the Court. In paragraph No.52, the Trial Court also taken note of that the incident was taken place in the public place within 100 metres from the voting booth. In paragraph No.54 also taken note of that the prosecution has failed to explain for what reason the accused has castigated - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2151-DB CRL.A No. 2104 of 2024 their caste and no details are given on how the incident was taken place castigating P.W.1 and P.W.6. 12. The Trial Court in paragraph No.56 has taken note that the Public Prosecutor during the course of his arguments has consistently argued that the victims and eyewitnesses of the case have consistently deposed the offence committed by the accused and their evidence is corroborated with each other. But, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the motive or the intention behind the offence and the same is not proved. The incident place is adjacent to the main gate of the school. If that place is the incident place, definitely the officials who were deputed to maintain the law and order were the eyewitnesses to the incident. Non-examination of those witnesses and also non-examination of public who gathered at the place of the incident has made fatal to the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court appreciated the evidence available on record considering the incriminating evidence available against the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2151-DB CRL.A No. 2104 of 2024 accused and the very incident is doubtful, since the allegation is that the incident was taken place in public place and in the public view and the officials who were deputed to maintain the law and order of that place and the public present at the place of the incident were not examined. Hence, we do not find any ground to admit the appeal. 13. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9