Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1954 (KAR)

Madhukar S/o Chidanandappa v. State of Karnataka

2025-12-17

G.BASAVARAJA

body2025
JUDGMENT : G. BASAVARAJA, J. 1. The appellants have preferred this criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 05 th March 2014 and order on sentence dated 07 th March 2014, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Special Case No.17/2011. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to their rank as before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Challakere Sub-Division, Challakere, submitted a charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offence under Sections 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, read with Section 34 of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that the complainant-Mudalagiri is the resident of Chikkenahalli village, Challakere Taluk and he belongs to Adi Karnataka caste. On 01.05.2011, since there was election to Challakere Taluk APMC, and in that regard, at about 11.15 a.m., the complainant and his father-Dyamanna came to Chikkenahalli bus-stand in order to go to Kaparahalli village to cast their votes and in the said bus stand one Vishwanatha and Thippeswamy were present by holding Voters List. His father asked and took the Voters List to peruse the same, by that time accused Nos.1 to 3 came there and told the complainant, he will not vote for their candidate, why he is seeing the No.1 assaulted him with club on his head causing bleeding injury, accused No.2 picked up the stone which was laying there and assaulted with on his left side ribs and accused No.3 assaulted with stick on his left shoulder. Then Dyamanna, Kenchappa and Vishwanath separated the galata. The accused Nos.1 to 3 while returning, threatened him with dire consequence, and left the spot throwing the sticks, stones and clubs there itself. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the complaint before the Head Constable, who came to the Government hospital and thereafter, registered a case in Crime No.157/2011, for the above said offences and submitted FIR to the court. The said Head Constable handed over the case file to the Dy.S.P., for further investigation. Further investigation of the case was taken over by Dy.S.P. and after completion of investigation, he has submitted charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the above said offences. 4. The said Head Constable handed over the case file to the Dy.S.P., for further investigation. Further investigation of the case was taken over by Dy.S.P. and after completion of investigation, he has submitted charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the above said offences. 4. After receipt of the charge-sheet, the Trial Court has registered the case in Special Case No.17/2011 and summons were issued to the accused. In response to the summons, the accused appeared before the Court, who were on bail. 5. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court has framed the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989, read-over and explained to the accused Nos.1 to 3, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined as many as 12 witnesses as PWs.1 to 12 and placed reliance on documents which were marked at Ex.P.1 to P.8 and three material objects were also got marked M.Os.1 to 3. 7. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.PC., was recorded. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have totally denied the incriminating materials appearing against them. But they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. 8. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506 read with Sections 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the above said offences, and further convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST(PoA) Act, 1989 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellants/accused No.1 to 3 have preferred this appeal. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-Sri.Balaraj A.C., would submit that the impugned judgment is illegal, perverse, erroneous and arbitrary and hence, the same is liable to be set-aside. The version of PW1 in his examination-in-chief at Para No. 1 is contradictory to his complaint dated 01.05.2011 and hence, same is not believable. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-Sri.Balaraj A.C., would submit that the impugned judgment is illegal, perverse, erroneous and arbitrary and hence, the same is liable to be set-aside. The version of PW1 in his examination-in-chief at Para No. 1 is contradictory to his complaint dated 01.05.2011 and hence, same is not believable. It is further submitted that PW1 has not stated in his examination-in-chief with regard to the alleged threatening by accused Nos. 1 to 3. The Trial Court Judge has convicted the accused only on the basis of the evidences of PW1, PW4, PW6 and PW7, who are interested witnesses and family members. While examining the evidence, the learned Trial Court Judge failed to take note that they are the relative-witnesses such as PW5 is son-in-law of PW1, PW6 is the father-in-law of PW1, PW7 is elder brother of PW1. 10. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court Judge failed to note that the independent witnesses who are PW2, PW3 and PW4 who are said to be the eye-witness to the incident; and PW8, who is the punch- witness have not supported the case of the prosecution as they have turned hostile. It is further submitted that even though there is no cogent, corroborative and acceptable evidence placed before the Trial Court, the Trial Court has convicted the accused and hence, it is not sustainable in law. With regard to the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989, is concerned, the learned counsel would submit that there is no evidence to show that the accused have abused the complainant in public place. 11. In order to substantiate his contentions, learned Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the following decisions: (1) Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Another, in Criminal Appeal No.707 of 2020, dated 05.11.2020 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, (2) Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, in SLP (CRL)No.1249/2023, dated 19.05.2023 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, (3) Karuppudayar Vs. State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi, Trichy and Others, in SLP (Criminal) No.8778-8779 of 2024, dated 31.01.2025 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, (4) Sri.Rithesh Pais Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, in Criminal Petition No.3597 of 2022, dated 10.06.2022 of High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru and (5) Mallappa Vs. State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi, Trichy and Others, in SLP (Criminal) No.8778-8779 of 2024, dated 31.01.2025 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, (4) Sri.Rithesh Pais Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, in Criminal Petition No.3597 of 2022, dated 10.06.2022 of High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru and (5) Mallappa Vs. The State of Karnataka and Another, in Criminal Appeal No.200144/2016, dated 04.06.2025 of the High Court of Karnataka (Kalaburagi Bench). 12. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader-Sri.B.Lakshman, opposed this appeal stating that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and convicted the accused No.1 to 3 for the alleged commission of offences and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal the materials placed before this Court, the following points would arise for my consideration: i. Whether the appellants make out a case that the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court suffers from legal infirmity and perversity and calls for interference by this Court? ii. What order? 14. My findings to the above points are as under:- i. Point No.1 : In the Affirmative ii. Point No.2 : As per final order for the following: REASONS 15. Point No.1: The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Challakere Sub-Division, Challakere, submitted a charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence under Sections 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 read with Section 34 of IPC. This genesis of the case arise out of Ex.P1-The complaint filed by Mudalagiri S/o Thimmappa, who is examined as PW.1, in which it is stated as under: 16. PW.1 has deposed in his evidence that CW.4 is his uncle. He knows CW.5 and CW6. His father name is Thimmappa. He is having 10 acres of land. His name was not in the APMC voters list. The name of his uncle CW.4 was in voters list. That on 01.05.2011 at about 11.00 a.m., he was proceeding along with CW.4 to Chikkenahalli bus stand and he asked Thippeswamy to give voter list and he was seeing voter list. For that, accused No.1 came and abused him. When it was objected by the complainant, accused No.1 assaulted with wooden club on the head of the complainant. That on 01.05.2011 at about 11.00 a.m., he was proceeding along with CW.4 to Chikkenahalli bus stand and he asked Thippeswamy to give voter list and he was seeing voter list. For that, accused No.1 came and abused him. When it was objected by the complainant, accused No.1 assaulted with wooden club on the head of the complainant. Accused No.3 gave blow to him with club on his left shoulder. Accused No.2-Gopi gave blow to him with stone on his left rib. Then he fell on the ground. Then somebody telephoned to the ambulance. PWs.4 and 5 shifted him to the Government Hospital, Challakere and his gave complaint as per Ex.P1. He has identified the wooden clubs and stones-MO 1 and 2. 17. PW.2-Thimmiah and PW.3-Manjanna said to be attesters to the Spot Mahazar-Ex.P2, have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.4-Thippeswamy said to be eyewitness has not supported the case of the prosecution. Even in his cross- examination made by the Special Public Prosecutor after treating him as hostile witness with the permission of the Court, he has categorically denied the statement said to have been recorded by the IO under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. which is marked as Ex.P3. PW.5-Vishwanath deposed in his evidence that he knows PW1, PW.6-Dyamanna and the accused. At about two years back one day, PW.1 was seeing the voter list near Chikkenahalli bus stand, then all accused came and questioned him that why you are seeing the voter list?, you will not cast your vote to them and abused him as On questioning the same, accused No.1 gave blow to PW.1 with club on his head, accused No.2 gave blow to him with stone on his left rib, accused No.3 gave blow to PW.1 on his left shoulder. As a result, PW.1 sustained bleeding injuries on his head. Then he had been shifted through ambulance to the Government Hospital, Challakere. By that time PW.7-Thippeswamy was present. PW.6-Dyamanna has deposed in his evidence that PW.1 is his son. He knows the accused. At about 03 years back, one day, PW.1 was seeing voter list then accused came and questioned PW.1 and abused him as and Madhukara gave blow to him on his head, Girisha gave blow to his son on his ribs. Another accused assaulted to his son. He knows the accused. At about 03 years back, one day, PW.1 was seeing voter list then accused came and questioned PW.1 and abused him as and Madhukara gave blow to him on his head, Girisha gave blow to his son on his ribs. Another accused assaulted to his son. PW.7-Thippeswamy has deposed his evidence that accused has abused PW.1 by referring their caste and accused No.1 gave blow to him with club on his head. Accused No.3 gave blow to PW.1 with club on his left shoulder. Accused No.2-Gopi gave blow to PW.1 with stone on his left ribs. Then shifted PW.1 to the Government Hospital, Challakere. Identified MOs.1 to 3. PW.8-Goshappa said to be the eyewitness, has not supported the case of the prosecution. Even in his cross- examination made by the Special Public Prosecutor, he has categorically denied the statement said to have been recorded by the IO under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which is marked as Ex.P4. PW.9-Alkur Bovi, Retired Tahsildar has deposed as to the issuance of Caste Certificate-Ex.P5. PW.10-Shashu Modi, Police Constable has deposed as to the submission and FIR to the Court and also deposed as to the Police Passport-Ex.P6. PW.11-Dr.Sudheendra has deposed as to the examination of the injured-Mudalagiri S/o Dyamanna and issuance of Wound Certificate-Ex.P7. PW.12-Hanumantharaya, Investigating Officer clearly admitted in his evidence that he has not collected the documents to show that on 01.05.2011, there was a APMC election in Challakere and he has not recorded the statement of the concerned officers who were deputed to election. The IO has not explained anything as to non- collection of the said document. The IO has not collected the voter list which was in the possession of PW.4. The IO has not explained anything for non-production of the said voter list said to have been in the custody of PW.4. The PW.4-Thippeswamy has not supported to the case of the prosecution. He has clearly deposed that the PW.1 did not ask the voter list and he has not given any statement before the Dy.SP. 18. With regard to the assault made by the accused is concerned, in Ex.P1-Complaint it is stated that accused No.1-Madhukar gave blow to complainant/PW.1 with club on his head; accused No.2-Gopi gave blow to PW.1 with stone on left ribs of PW.1 and then, Girish has assaulted PW.1 with stick on his left shoulder. 18. With regard to the assault made by the accused is concerned, in Ex.P1-Complaint it is stated that accused No.1-Madhukar gave blow to complainant/PW.1 with club on his head; accused No.2-Gopi gave blow to PW.1 with stone on left ribs of PW.1 and then, Girish has assaulted PW.1 with stick on his left shoulder. PW.1 has deposed the same in his evidence. PW.5-Vishwanath has deposed that accused No.1 gave blow on the head of PW1. Accused No.2 gave blow with stone on his left ribs and accused No.3 assaulted to PW.1 with stick on the left shoulder of PW.1. PW.7 also deposed the same. The Wound Certificate-Ex.P7 reveals that the injured-PW.1 has admitted to the hospital with history of assault on 01.05.2011 at 11.15 a.m. PW-11-Dr.Sudheendra who has examined the injured has deposed as to the examination of the injured and also issuance of Wound Certificate- Ex.P7. The Ex.P7-Wound Certificate does not reveal as to the name of the accused and also weapon used for the commission of offence. PW.11-Dr.Sudheendra has not whispered anything against the accused. In his cross-examination, he has clearly admitted that the injured had not stated before him who had assaulted him. Further, he has clearly admitted that the injured had not stated by which weapon he was assaulted. The Ex.P7-Wound Certificate reveals that the injured has sustained only two injuries, which are as under: i) Lacerated wound (3x3x1cm) over left parietal region of skull. ii) C/o pain abdomen. 19. Though this injured examined by the Medical Officer within one hour from the time of incident, PW.11 has not found any injuries on the left side of the shoulder and left side ribs. If really the accused have assaulted PW.1 as stated in Ex.P1, the Medical Officer would have mentioned the said injuries in the Wound Certificate. The injured has not stated the names of the accused before the Medical Officer and has also not stated before the Medical Officer as to the weapon used for the commission of offences. The evidence of PW.1 had not been corroborated by the independent witnesses. Admittedly, PW.5 is the sister's son of PW.1, PW.6 is the father of PW.1, PW.7 is the brother of PW.1. The evidence of PW.1 had not been corroborated by the independent witnesses. Admittedly, PW.5 is the sister's son of PW.1, PW.6 is the father of PW.1, PW.7 is the brother of PW.1. Though the name of Dyamanna is not shown in Ex.P1 at the time of filing charge sheet, the IO has inserted the name of Dyamanna as an eyewitness, which create doubt as to the presence of Dyamanna. There is no consistency as to the injuries shown in Wound Certificate and the evidence of PWs.1, 5, 6 and 7. 20. The evidence of prosecution witnesses has not been supported by independent witnesses. The independent witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has failed to elicit any favourable answers from the independent witnesses. Though there is no cogent, corroborative, consistent legal evidence before the Court, the trial Court has convicted the accused only on the basis of testimony of the witnesses PWs.1, 5, 6 and7, which is not sustainable under law. 21. With regard to the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is concerned, there is no evidence to show that the accused have intentionally insulted or intimidated with an intention to humiliate PW.1 in a place within public view. Except interested close relatives, none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. In the absence of cogent and corroborative evidence, it is not safe to convict the accused for the commission of offence under Section3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. 22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the appellants make out a case that the impugned judgment of conviction suffers from legal infirmity and perversity and call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in 'Affirmative'. 23. Point No.2: For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: i) Appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment of conviction dated 05 th March 2014 and order on sentence dated 07 th March 2014, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Special Case No.17/2011 is set aside. 23. Point No.2: For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: i) Appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment of conviction dated 05 th March 2014 and order on sentence dated 07 th March 2014, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Special Case No.17/2011 is set aside. iii) The appellants/accused are acquitted for the offence under Section 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, read with Section 34 of IPC. iv) The bail bonds and surety of the accused shall stand cancelled. v) The fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellants shall be returned to the appellants. Registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment along TCR to the trial Court.