IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100256 OF 2015 (A-)

BETWEEN:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR CHIKKODI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE, HIGH COURT BENCH UNIT, DHARWAD.

(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)

…PETITIONER

AND:

V N BADIGER

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: DHARWAD

• 1. SRI.NINGAPPA SIDDAPPA HARKE AGE:42 YEARS, R/O:JODAKURALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
• 2. SRI MUTTAPPA LAKKAPPA DUGGANI @ KHADDI AGE:26 YEARS, R/O:JODIKURALI, PRESENT R/O SHIROOSH, TQ:MUDHOL, DIST: BELAGAVI.
• 3. SRI MALLAPPA LAKKAPPA DUGGANI @ KHADDI AGE:35 YEARS, R/O:JODIKURALI, PRESENT R/O SHIROOSH, TQ:MUDHOL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

OFFICE NOTE: OFFICE RAISED THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIONS IN THIS MATTER: [1] PROVISION OF LAW TO BE MENTIONED IN CAUSE TITLE. [2] OFFENCE TO BE MENTIONED IN PRAYER. [3] DELAY APPLICATION TO BE FILED (6 DAYS DELAY).

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGEMENT

The first information report was lodged by CW.1 namely Sri Suresh S. Madar alleging that when he was passing through the land of accused No.1 and when he attempted to remove the sharp shrubs, the accused No.1 by referring to his caste, abused him with filthy language and assaulted him with a stone on his head. It is further alleged that when CW.4 intervened to pacify the quarrel, the accused No.1 caused injuries to CW.4 on her left hand. It is further alleged that when CWs.4 to 7 came to the rescue of CW.1, accused Nos.2 and 3 abused them in filthy language and assaulted them with hands, legs and caused bodily injuries. The police registered the FIR against the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 506, 34, 504, 323, 324 of IPC and Section 3(1)(11), 3(1)(10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. The police after investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

3. The prosecution to prove its case examined PW1 to PW11 and marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.11 and produced material objects as Ex.M.1 to M.2. The learned Sessions Judge after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and examining the evidence on record passed the impugned judgement acquitting the accused for the offences alleged against them. Taking exception to the same, the State has come on appeal.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the evidence of injured witnesses as well as eye-witnesses to the incident clearly discloses that the accused have committed the

• 3 -

offences alleged against them. However learned Sessions Judge ignoring the said evidence by stating that they are interested witnesses as they belong to the same caste has passed the impugned judgement and the same is not sustainable in law.

5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the accused submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that PW1 and PW3 have sustained injuries and the wound certificates produced by the prosecution at EX.P.6 and 7 disclose that the alleged incident has taken place on 07.02.2012. However the FIR was lodged alleging that the incident has taken place on 06.02.2012 which falsifies the allegation that the alleged incident has taken place.

6. He Further submits that though there were other independent witnesses present at the time of alleged incident and none of the independent witnesses were examined to prove that the accused have committed the offences alleged against them and have only examined

• 4 -

interested witnesses who belong to the same caste as that of PW.1.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

8. PW.1 and PW.3 are the injured witnesses and they have supported the case of the prosecution. PW.2 who is the panch witness to the spot panchnama at Ex.P.3 has supported the case of the prosecution and also proved the seizure of material objects 1 and 2. PW.3 who is injured witness and sister of the PW.1 has supported the case of the prosecution. PW.4 is the brother of PW.1 who is the alleged eye-witness to the incident has supported the case of the prosecution. PW.5 who is wife of PW.4 and the eye-witness to the alleged incident has supported the case of the prosecution. PW.6 is the father of PW.1 and the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident has supported case of the prosecution.

9. PW.7 who is an independent witness but however belongs to the same caste that of PW.1 has supported the case of the prosecution. PW.8 who is an independent eye-witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.9 who is also an independent eyewitness has supported the case of the prosecution, however the said witnesses belong to the same caste as that of PW.1. PW.10 who is the doctor alleged to have treated the injured witness namely PW.1 and 3 has supported the case of the prosecution but in his evidence he has consistently stated that the alleged incident has taken place on 07.02.2012 as reflected in the wound certificates EX.P6 and 7. PW.11, who is the investigating officer has filed the charge sheet, supported the case of the prosecution.

10. Though the injured witnesses namely PW.1 and PW.3 and the eye-witnesses to the incident namely PW.2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 have supported the case of the prosecution, however, their evidences have been held to

be unworthy of credit by the learned Sessions Judge having regard to the fact that the said witnesses belong to the same caste as that of PW.1. The learned Session Judge taking into account, the evidence of other eyewitnesses to the alleged incident who belongs to the different castes have not been examined by the prosecution held that the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

11. The eye-witnesses to the alleged incident are close relatives of PW1 and the complainant and PWs.2 to 7 and 9 belong to the same caste and they being close relatives of PW.1 and the interested witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution but their testimony has not been propagated by other independent witnesses numbering 15 to 20 who were the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. The learned Sessions Judge has held that non examination of independent is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

12. Even otherwise the PW.10 the doctor, who is alleged have treated PWs.1 and 3, has deposed that on 07.02.2012 PWs.1 and 3 were brought before him with history of assault and he examined PW.3 and injury caused on left hand measuring 6 inches and abrasion and he has further stated that he examined PW.1 who sustained injury measuring 4 inches abrasion on both hands and chest and he has admitted that he has issued wound certificate on EX.P6 and 7. The wound certificate at EX.P6 and 7 disclose that the alleged assault was made on 07.02.2012, however in the first information report lodged by the PW1, it is alleged that the incident has taken place on 06.02.2012. Therefore, there is contradiction with regard to the date of the incident and in the medical certificates EX.P6 and 7, there is no mention that the injuries sustained by PW1 and PW3 were caused by stones or from stem of sugarcane. The prosecution having failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly passed the impugned

judgement acquitting the accused for the offences punishable alleged against them. On re-appreciation on evidence on record. I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgement passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed.

13. In view of disposal of the matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are dismissed accordingly.

Sd/- JUDGE

SSP