JUDGMENT : Mr. Rajendra Badamikar, J. - This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused No.1 under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Special Case (SC/ST) No.382/2011 dated 23.09.2016. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original rankings occupied by them before the Trial Court. 3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are as under: That the complainant has lodged a complaint as per Ex.P. 1 by setting the law in motion. It is alleged on 13.05.2011 he was deputed on picketing duty from 02-00 p.m. to 10-00 p.m. near Santosh Talkies, Kalaburagi. It is alleged that when he was discharging his duty, at 05-45 p.m., near Windsor Bar, accused No. 1 who was the husband of DYSP Smt. Madhuraveena came with 4 others and asked him to bring water battles from hotel, for which he asked politely to take the water bottle by himself. It is alleged that then accused No. 1 abused him in vulgar language asserting that he is the husband of DYSP and he would see that how the complainant would continue in the job and he would see that he would be removed from the service, dragged him by holding his uniform and slapped on his cheek. Then, the complainant who was head constable in Ashok Nagar Police informed the matter to P.W.2/ASI/Saibanna and P.W.10/ASI/Tayanna who were on patrolling duty. When they along with the police constables Pradeep and Hanamanth, who were discharging their duties in the Central bus stand came near Windsor bar, they noticed that accused No.1 was not there. They got information that he went near Kapila lodge and they all went there and P.W.10/ASI/Tayanna asked accused No.1 and his companions as to why they have manhandled his colleagues/police officials. Then accused No.1 abused them in vulgar language and fisted on the face. As a result, Tayanna fell down and become unconscious for couple of minutes. It is further alleged that the other companion pushed Saibanna/P.W.2. However, they all managed to control accused No.1 and accused No.1 and others were taken to police Station. There the wife of accused No.1 Smt. Madhuraveena came and before her accused No.1 abused in vulgar language claiming that the police have assaulted him and attempted to manhandle Saibanna. It is further alleged that the other companion pushed Saibanna/P.W.2. However, they all managed to control accused No.1 and accused No.1 and others were taken to police Station. There the wife of accused No.1 Smt. Madhuraveena came and before her accused No.1 abused in vulgar language claiming that the police have assaulted him and attempted to manhandle Saibanna. It is alleged that the DYSP instead of controlling accused No.1, abused police officials and told them that she will look how they would continue in service and at her instigation, accused No.1 abused Saibanna with reference to his caste. Then DYSP took accused No.1 and his four companions in the chamber of Police Inspector and later on took them in her jeep and went away. When the Police Inspector went to the police station, the same was narrated to him and a complaint was lodged. The injured were referred to Medical Officer and they obtained treatment. The mahazar was also drawn in this regard. After completing the investigation, the investigating officer has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 353, 332 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. Accused No.1 was arrested and was subsequently enlarged on bail. The cognizance of the offences were taken by the learned Special Judge after submission of the charge-sheet and the copies of the prosecution papers were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. As accused No.2 is not traceable, the case against him was spilt-up and case against accused No.1 was proceeded with. The learned Special Judge after considering the records framed the charges and the accused pleaded not guilty. 5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 19 witnesses and also placed reliance on 22 documents. During the cross-examination of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.12, Exs.D.1 to D.7 were got marked on behalf of defence. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded to enable him to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him. The case of the accused is of total denial. During the cross-examination of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.12, Exs.D.1 to D.7 were got marked on behalf of defence. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded to enable him to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him. The case of the accused is of total denial. The learned Special Judge after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, convicted accused No.1/appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 353, 332 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act by imposing imprisonment as well as fine. 6. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, accused No.1 is before this Court by way of this appeal. 7. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. Perused the records. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the evidence on record disclose that there are case and counter case and in the complaint lodged by the accused, 'B' final report is submitted by filing a protest memo and subsequently, file was not being traced. He would contend that since there are case and counter cases, both cases ought to have been tried together, but that was not done. He would further assert that the allegations of assault do not tally with would certificates as there are allegations of assault on the head, cheek, on the face, and fisting, but the wound certificate spoke different story. He would also assert that admittedly, the evidence disclose that the accused made counter allegation of he being assaulted and the evidence disclose that he admitted in the hospital as inpatient and there is no explanation from the prosecution regarding the injuries found on his body. He would also contend that all the witnesses are only the police officials and though the alleged incident is said to have taken place in public place, none of the independent witnesses were examined to prove the alleged incident of assault on police officials and the independent witnesses who were examined did not support the case of the prosecution. He would also contend that all the witnesses are only the police officials and though the alleged incident is said to have taken place in public place, none of the independent witnesses were examined to prove the alleged incident of assault on police officials and the independent witnesses who were examined did not support the case of the prosecution. He would also contend that the evidence of all the police officials who claims to be the victims consists of lot of contradictions, omissions and improvements which disclose that they are concealing truth and putting forward new false case. He would also assert that the alleged vulgar abuse with reference to caste is not within the public view as it is alleged to be inside the police station and hence, the ingredients of Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST are not attracted. According to the prosecution, there are three incidents, one is near Santosh talkies, another is near Windsor bar and third is in the police station, but there are no independent eyewitnesses to the alleged first two incidents and considering the counter case filed by the accused, it is evident that only in order to save the skin, accused No.1 was falsely fixed in this case. He would also contend that P.W.1 and P.W.2 initially have turned hostile and further as per the case of the prosecution, caste abuse is against P.W.2, but complaint is lodged by P.W.1 and P.W.1 and P.W.2 initially turned hostile and in the cross-examination by the learned special public prosecutor, they have partly supported the case of the prosecution which discloses that all is not well. Hence, he would contend that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is further asserted that the learned Special Judge failed to appreciate any of these aspects and only on the basis of the examination-in-chief, proceeded to convict the accused without considering the cross-examination and material admissions including the contradictions. Hence, he would seek for allowing the appeal by acquitting the accused/appellant. 9. It is further asserted that the learned Special Judge failed to appreciate any of these aspects and only on the basis of the examination-in-chief, proceeded to convict the accused without considering the cross-examination and material admissions including the contradictions. Hence, he would seek for allowing the appeal by acquitting the accused/appellant. 9. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that all the official witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and P.W.9 doctor who has treated the injured has also supported the case of the prosecution and the contradictions are not material so as to go to the root of the case and as such, he would seek for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Having heard the arguments and after perusing the records, now the following point would arise for my consideration: "Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Special Case (SC/ST) No.382/2011 dated 23.09.2016 is perverse, arbitrary and erroneous so as to call for any interference by this Court?" 11. The case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.10, P.W.11 and P.W.19. P.W.7 and P.W.8 are independent witnesses, but they have turned hostile. There is allegation of abuse to P.W.2 with reference to caste. Ex.P.6 and the evidence of P.W.18 establish the aspect that P.W.2 belongs to SC Caste. This fact is also not seriously disputed and it is also admitted that accused No.1 belongs to category-I. There is also no serious dispute of the fact that P.W.1, 2 and 10 are discharging duty and this is again proved by the evidence of P.W.11 SHO and Station house diary at Ex.P.22. 12. It is also important to note here that accused No.1 is the husband of the then DYSP Madhuraveena who was working in circle - I in Kalaburagi. It is further evident that all along allegations were against accused No.1 alone and accused No.2 and 4 companions were alleged to be there, but atrocity was alleged against accused Nos.1 and 2 alone. It is further evident from the records that the admissions given by the prosecution witnesses that accused No.1 has also lodged a complaint against the complainant and others who are eyewitnesses in the instant case regarding manhandling him and his complaint was also registered. It is further evident from the records that the admissions given by the prosecution witnesses that accused No.1 has also lodged a complaint against the complainant and others who are eyewitnesses in the instant case regarding manhandling him and his complaint was also registered. It is evident from the medical officer's evidence that he did sustain injuries and was admitted in the hospital for three days. Interestingly, 'B' final report was submitted in the said case and further a protest petition was also filed by the accused. When the accused has filed a protest petition, that matter was required to be considered by transmitting it to the Special Court in view of the counter case after recording the sworn statement. But it is submitted that the said entire file was missing. This statement was not disputed by the prosecution. When there are case and counter case, it was the duty of the concerned Special Judge to see that the records pertaining to counter case should be secured or it should reach finality and they should be disposed of simultaneously. Though it is evident from the records, the entire judgment of the Special Judge did not whisper about this aspect. The entire judgment of the Special Judge disclose that she has accepted the examination-in-chief of the witnesses without considering their cross-examinations, contradictions, omissions including non-explanation on the part of the prosecution regarding injuries found on the body of accused No. 1 who is the appellant herein. This approach of the learned Special Judge has prejudiced the accused. 13. The complaint is marked as Ex.P. 1 and the complainant is examined as P.W.1. In the complaint, the complainant asserted that accused No. 1 who was the husband of DYSP Smt. Madhuraveena came there along with four persons and demanded him to get the water and when he asked time to get himself, he was abused in vulgar language. But in the examination-in-chief, he deposed that when the accused has demanded water, he answered adamantly and abusive words referred in the complaint and in his examination-in-chief are contradictory. Further in the complaint, he asserted that accused No. 1 came there along with four persons, but in his examination-in-chief, he deposed that the accused came with one person alone. These stands are inconsistent. Further in the complaint, he asserted that accused No. 1 came there along with four persons, but in his examination-in-chief, he deposed that the accused came with one person alone. These stands are inconsistent. His further evidence disclose that the accused has assaulted him by slapping on his cheek and he directly narrated the matter to ASI Saibanna and ASI Saibanna along with Pradeep and Hanamanth, the Police constables came near Windsor bar. But in his examination-in-chief, he improved his version asserting that he has took him to the police station and on the way to the police station, he received message from SHO that there are ASI and Police in bus stand and along with them, he was directed to bring the accused to the police station. This is completely new story invented by the complainant. Further he claimed that he was slapped on the cheek, but his injury certificate which is marked at Ex.Pll discloses that he did not suffer any injury on the cheek, but the allegations were regarding swelling with pain on the left side of neck and severe pain on the left side of abdomen and no case of assault of abdomen was made out. 14. His further evidence discloses that near Kapila lodge when ASI Saibanna enquired with the accused, he was abused and the accused has slapped him and as such the ASI become unconscious. This is again an exaggeration as wound certificate marked at Ex.P.13 does not disclose that he suffered any injuries on his cheek. He further deposed that when ASI Saibanna was interfered, he was assaulted by hands and then they took him to the police station wherein Smt. Madhuraveena came. In his examination-chief he did not depose regarding caste abuse in the police station and his evidence is completely silent in this regard. He was treated hostile in this regard and in his cross-examination he admitted that Shankar was in need of water and this is a suggestion made by the prosecution. The allegations disclose that even the DYSP supported the accused, but she was not made as accused in the instant case. Though this witness was treated as hostile witness, there is no suggestion in the entire cross-examination by the prosecution that accused abused with reference to caste. 15. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he denied of giving statements as per Exs.D. 1 to D.4. Though this witness was treated as hostile witness, there is no suggestion in the entire cross-examination by the prosecution that accused abused with reference to caste. 15. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he denied of giving statements as per Exs.D. 1 to D.4. He also admitted that certain aspects he did not narrate, but the writer himself got it written and he further claimed in cross-examination that they attended Tayanna by providing water to him which is a new case. He deposed that he did not give any statements as per Exs.D. 1 to D.4. 16. He claims in his cross-examination that he was admitted in the hospital for eight days, but it is not the case of the prosecution that he was admitted for eight days and injuries referred in Ex.P.11 are very simple and the question of admitting him for eight days does not arise at all. On the contrary, he admits that the accused was admitted in the hospital earlier to them and he was inpatient for three days. 17. He further admitted that against him and others, as case in Crime No.55/2011 was registered. He further specifically admitted that the wife of the accused Madhuraveena was the DYSP in Ashok Nagar division and was very strict in implemention of rules and very particular regarding wearing shoes, time sense and she used to take stringent action for maintaining law and order. When a suggestion is made that she has given two memos to him, interestingly, he did not deny this aspect but pleads ignorance. He also admitted that in respect of a complaint lodged by the accused, 'B' final report is submitted and the accused has submitted protest petition. However, that file is missing and hence, it is evident that the evidence of the complainant consists lot of contradictions, omissions and improvements. Hence, it cannot be trusted. 18. P.W.2 is Saibanna is other eyewitness and his evidence discloses that by evening at 05-30 or 06-00 O' clock, the some public intimated him that some persons were assaulting a police head constable and meanwhile, he received phone from SHO to go near Windsor bar and he received message from control room also. This witness claims that the SHO intimated him. This witness claims that the SHO intimated him. This witness further deposed that the accused slapped on the cheek of Tayanna, but as observed above, the medical evidence does not support and he claims that he was assaulted by other persons accompanying accused, but that was not the case stated by P.W.1. 19. Even his examination-in-chief is also silent regarding specific words as alleged by the complainant and to him and it is not his case that where the incident is happened it was visible to public. The complaint was lodged against the appellant and one person, but the evidence of this witness discloses that all along there are 3-4 persons who were accompanying accused No.1. This witness was partially treated as hostile and denied that he has given any further statement as per Ex.P.2. In his cross-examination he admits that near Windsor bar, number of commercial establishments are situated including auto stand and lot of public will be available, but none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. He denied of giving statement as per Ex.D.5 before the investigating officer. Hence, it appears that this witness was used only to fix the accused with reference to his caste. 20. P.W.3 Hanamanth is the mahazar witness, but he has also turned hostile. P.W.4 Eranna and P.W.5 Vijayakumar have deposed regarding the accused demanding from them water and when they offered water in a glass, he demanded them in a bottle, but they did not whisper the alleged incident as claimed by the complainant regarding he being directing to bring the water or dragging him with uniform by obstructing. Their evidence is completely silent and their evidence simply discloses that the verbal conversation was going on between the accused and Jamedar, but that does not establish the case of the prosecution and he has denied regarding giving statement as per Ex.D.6 before the investigating officer. Hence, the evidence of P.W.4 and 5 do not assist the prosecution in any way. 21. P.W.6 has simply deposed regarding drawing sketch, but the mahazar witness has turned hostile. P.W.7 Chandrakant and P.W.8 Shivakuamr are the two witnesses in respect of second incident said to have taken place near Windsor bar and both these witnesses have turned hostile and denied the case of the prosecution. 22. 21. P.W.6 has simply deposed regarding drawing sketch, but the mahazar witness has turned hostile. P.W.7 Chandrakant and P.W.8 Shivakuamr are the two witnesses in respect of second incident said to have taken place near Windsor bar and both these witnesses have turned hostile and denied the case of the prosecution. 22. P.W.9 the Medial Officer has deposed giving treatment to the injured at 11-00 p.m. and his evidence discloses that he examined all the three witnesses i.e., Bhimappa, Saibanna and Tayanna at 11 O' clock only. At least he requires 5-10 minutes for examining the each witnesses, but he mentioned the timings of all the witnesses at 11-00 p.m. and the injuries are simple. He admits in the cross-examination that he did not mention the colour of the injuries as well as size of swelling and he asserts that hand is not a blunt object. His cross-examination further discloses that on the same day, at 8-50 p.m. accused No.1 was treated by him who approached him along with a history of assault and he has treated him and he was admitted in the hospital and his statement was also recorded by the police, but the things disclose that subsequently that statement was not placed and 'B' final report came to be submitted. 23. P.W.10 is another star witness who is eyewitness to the second and third incidents and his evidence discloses that somebody intimated him regarding galata being taken place near Windsor bar and he simultaneously received wireless message and he deposed that when he went there near the Kapila lodge, he was assaulted by right hand on the his cheek and he fell unconscious, but the evidence of medical officer speaks different story and his wound certificate marked at Ex.P.13 discloses that he suffered injuries on the forearm and left side angle of eye, but no injuries were found on his cheek. In the further examination, the words used regarding abuse of the caste are entirely different and contradictory to the case of the prosecution. Further his allegation is directed against the DYSP and in his cross-examination he pleads ignorance as to the person who has informed him the incident first. In the further examination, the words used regarding abuse of the caste are entirely different and contradictory to the case of the prosecution. Further his allegation is directed against the DYSP and in his cross-examination he pleads ignorance as to the person who has informed him the incident first. He however, claims that he did not come to the hospital immediately and he claims that he was inpatient in the hospital for four days and this is new version and it is not the case of the prosecution and when he suffered simple injuries, the question of he admitting in the hospital for four days does not arise at all. Even the evidence of this witness discloses that he has disputed giving further statement before the police and though the said portion was sought to be marked, the Special Judge has rejected on the ground that he was not treated hostile witness, but that should not be the procedure and his evidence does not corroborate in all sense with the case of the prosecution. 24. P.W.11 is the SHO and he deposed regarding receiving massage and abusing caste, but this is a new case put forward. Initially this witness was also treated as hostile and in the cross-examination, he admitted regarding abusing ASI with reference to his caste. His evidence is completely inconsistent and contrary to the evidence of the complainant. 25. P.W.12 Pradeep is another police constable who is eyewitness to the incident which took place near the bus stand and the police station and his evidence also discloses that the accused assaulted ASI by abusing him in vulgar language and slapped on his cheek. As observed above no injuries were found on the cheek and the abusive word used by this witness is entirely different and contradictory. He further deposed that when ASI Saibanna intervened, he was fisted, but the corresponding medial evidence speaks about different story. In his cross-examination, he further deposed that his further statement was never recorded by anybody and his evidence is not inconsistent with the other witnesses. 26. P.W.13 has deposed regarding the incident taken place in police station as she claims to be the century and she deposed that the accused abused ASI with reference to his caste, but there is no evidence to show that the abuse was with reference to caste in order to humiliate. 26. P.W.13 has deposed regarding the incident taken place in police station as she claims to be the century and she deposed that the accused abused ASI with reference to his caste, but there is no evidence to show that the abuse was with reference to caste in order to humiliate. She asserts that on that day all the press-reporters were present. It is important to note that the investigating officer did not record any statement of any of the press reporters and admittedly, the counter allegations are also serious regarding the police manhandling accused No.1 and the counter case is being registered. 27. P.W.14 has deposed regarding receiving a complaint on 11-00 p.m. When the incident has taken place around 06-00 to 6-30, why there is delay in receiving the complaint is not explained. He claims that the statement was given as per Ex.D.1 which is denied by P.W.1 himself. But the evidence on record disclose that prior to lodging of this complaint, the accused has already lodged complaint and that complaint was managed without taking any steps, though the accused sustained injuries and in the instant case, no attempt is made to explain the injuries found on the body of the accused. 28. P.W.15 has deposed regarding carrying FIR and P.W.16 is another mahazar witness, but he has also turned hostile. 29. P.W.17 is an investigating officer. Interestingly, on perusal of his examination-in-chief, it is evident that he has not even bothered to ascertain the accused lodging a complaint and for everything he pleads ignorance. When a complaint was lodged against 7-8 police officers and when the injured-accused was admitted the hospital, his contention that he was not having knowledge of this aspect discloses that he has not investigated the matter in a proper way. Even he pleads ignorance that in Ashok Nagar Police Station, Crime No.55/2011 was registered and this discloses that the investigation is not done with all fairness. 30. The evidence of medical officer discloses that at 09-00 O' clock itself, the police have recorded the statement of accused No.1 in the hospital. In that event, the complaint of accused should have been registered earlier to present complaint, but that was not registered earlier and only after getting a complaint in this case, the other complaint was registered, wherein 'B' final report came to be submitted. In that event, the complaint of accused should have been registered earlier to present complaint, but that was not registered earlier and only after getting a complaint in this case, the other complaint was registered, wherein 'B' final report came to be submitted. The cross-examination of this witness discloses that he has not even bothered to apply his mind to the investigation and hence, the entire investigation itself is biased one. 31. P.W.19 is another eyewitness. Though he has partially supported the case of the prosecution, but he has turned hostile to the other material aspects. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that the wife of accused No.1 DYSP by name Smt. Madhuraveena was a very strict officer and she used to issue memo when officials did not do their duties properly. Both P.W.1 and P.W.19 have admitted this aspect, but some of the other police officials disputed this aspect and it is specific defence of the accused that in order to get the transfer the strict DYSP i.e., wife of accused No.1, this false case was registered and the records also disclose that subsequently she was transferred. Apart from that, the other investigating officers were not examined and thereby an opportunity was denied to the accused so as to contradict the statements of the witnesses recorded. 32. The evidence on record clearly disclose that there are lot of contradictions, omissions and improvements and the allegations of caste abuse is alleged to be within four walls of the police station and it is not within the public vicinity. Even otherwise, there is no evidence to show that with reference to caste abuse, the accused had intention to humiliate the ASI P.W.2 Saibanna. Even otherwise, the records disclose that there was a counter complaint regarding police officials assaulting accused No.1 and manhandling him and he sustaining injuries. The records disclose that accused No.1 sustained injuries. He was admitted in the hospital for three days. The police officials have improved their version and independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. The entire approach of the police officials and investigating officer creates serious doubt regarding genuineness of the case as the investigating officer did not bother to ascertain the counter complaint. He was admitted in the hospital for three days. The police officials have improved their version and independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. The entire approach of the police officials and investigating officer creates serious doubt regarding genuineness of the case as the investigating officer did not bother to ascertain the counter complaint. Even the counter complaint filed itself was found to be missing and though it was brought on record, the Special Judge did not bother to verify this aspect and proceeded to convict the accused ignoring material contradictions, improvements and the evidence being contrary to the medical evidence. The Special Judge has also ignored the fact that the case and counter case are required to be disposed of simultaneously, but no such steps were initiated in this case. Even when it was brought on record during the course of the trial, the learned Special Judge has not taken any steps to secure the records. Hence, it is evident that the entire approach of the Special Judge is erroneous and arbitrary and it is biased one and it has lead to miscarriage of justice as he has failed to appreciate the contradictions, improvements and omissions in the oral and documentary evidence lead by the prosecution. Considering all these facts and circumstances, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, I am constrained to answer the point under consideration in the affirmative and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Special Judge calls for interference by this Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Special Case (SC/ST) No.382/2011 dated 23.09.2016 is set aside. The accused No. 1/appellant is acquitted for the offences under Sections 504, 353, 332 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused No.1/appellant is set at liberty. The bail bonds executed shall stand cancelled. The fine, if any, deposited by the accused shall be remitted back to him.