Karnataka High Court
Sharada K. Naik vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 9 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221
CRL.A No. 200082 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200082 OF 2022
(372(Cr.PC)/413(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHARADA K. NAIK
W/O KAMANTH S. N.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O S.N. CAMP, BASAPUR EJ
RAICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed THROUGH POLICE DY.SP. SINDHANUR,
by SHIVALEELA POLICE SUB-DIVISION
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI DIST: RAICHUR
Location: HIGH REPT. BY ADDL. SPP
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585102
2. RASHID SAB @ SHAFI AHMAD
S/O NASEERUDDIN
AGE: 50 YEARS
OCC: SHEEP BUSINESS
3. BASHU @ BASHASAB
S/O NASEERUDDIN
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221
CRL.A No. 200082 of 2022
HC-KAR
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: SHEEP BUSINESS
BOTH ARE R/O NEAR OLD GRAM
PANCHAYAT, HUTTI, TQ: LINGASUGUR
DIST: RAICHUR-584101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. S. R. KADLOOR ADV., FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.372 OF CR.P.C
U/SEC. 413 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE LEARNED
SPECIAL COURT FOR THE CASES UNDER THE SC/ST (PoA) ACT
AND 1ST ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR IN SPL. CASE
(ATROCITY) NO. 232/2017 IN ACQUITTING RESPONDENT NO.2
AND 3 AND TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECS. 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC
AND U/SEC. 3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST (PoA) ACT, 1989 BY
IMPOSING APPROPRIATE SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT AND
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant/complainant-victim has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.11.2021 passed in Special Case (Atrocity) No.232/2017 by the I- Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge/Special Court, Raichur (for short, 'the Trial Court').
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221 CRL.A No. 200082 of 2022 HC-KAR
2. The State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
4. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that, the Dy.S.P. Sindhanur police sub-division has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons alleging the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) unamended Act, 1989 [(for short, 'the SC/ST (PoA) Act']. It is alleged by the prosecution that, the complaint and accused persons are known to each other. The complainant used to graze sheep. On 28.08.2018 complainant sold 120 sheep to accused persons at a price of Rs.5,050/- each in the presence of CWs.5 and 6, totally amounting to Rs.6,06,000/- and received Rs.50,000/-. On 02.03.2017 at -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221 CRL.A No. 200082 of 2022 HC-KAR 12:30 noon, in front of house of PW.1-Sharada K. Nayak situated at S.N.Camp, Turvihal, Tq. Sindhanur, both the accused with common intention to insult PW.1 and in prosecution of such intention, intentionally insulted her by abusing in filthy languages as "J ±ÁgÀzÁ¨Á¬Ä £ÀªÀÄä UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ §AzÀÄ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀªÁV ºÀt PÉüÀĪÀµÀÄÖ ¸ÉÆPÀÄÌ §A¢zÉAiÀiÁ CqÀ« eÁw ®A¨Át eÁw ¤£ÀUÉ JµÀÄÖ ¸ÉÆPÀÄÌ ¸ÀƼÉà ªÀÄUÀ¼ÃÉ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß PÀÆzÀ®Ä »rzÀÄ §rAiÀÄÄvÉÛêÉ" thereby provoked her intending that such provocation would cause her to breach public peace and both accused also committed criminal intimidation by threatening her stating that "E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ¸À® ºÀt K£ÁzÀgÀÆ PÉüÀ®Ä §AzÀgÉ ¤ªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§ ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ ªÀÄÄV¹©qÀÄvÉÛêÉ" with an intent to cause alarm to her life. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint against the accused persons for the above offences.
5. After filing the charge-sheet, case was registered in Special Case (Atrocity) No.232/2017. Accused appeared before the Trial Court. The Trial Court -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221 CRL.A No. 200082 of 2022 HC-KAR has framed the charges for the alleged offences. The same were read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all, has examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11; and got marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused have denied the charges leveled against them. However, they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.
7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015. Being aggrieved by the -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221 CRL.A No. 200082 of 2022 HC-KAR judgment of acquittal, the appellant-complainant-victim has preferred this appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant- complainant-victim would submit that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge is contrary to law and facts of the case and evidence on record. PW.1-victim has deposed in her evidence that, accused Nos.1 and 2 abused her in filthy language by taking her caste name. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court ought to have taken presumption under Section 8 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
9. PWs.2 and 3 have also deposed as to the alleged incident. Accordingly, the evidence of PW.1 corroborated to the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 8 (eyewitness). The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective. The accused have not adduced any defence evidence. Further, the Trial -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221 CRL.A No. 200082 of 2022 HC-KAR Court has discarded the evidence and acquitted the accused persons. Hence, sought for allowing the appeal.
10. As against this, Sri.S.R.Kadloor, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3/accused would submit that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the materials on record in accordance with law and facts and absolutely that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra [2022 AIAR (Cri) 937] and Ravi Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. [(2022) 8 SCC 536].
11. Learned High Court Government Pleader has adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant.
12. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following points would arise for consideration: -8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221 CRL.A No. 200082 of 2022 HC-KAR
1) Whether the Trial Court is justified in passing the judgment of acquittal?
2) What order?
13. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order:
Point No.1:
14. Before appreciation of evidence and record, it is necessary to mention as to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another v. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025)5 SCC 433; Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar and Others v. State of Karnataka reported in (2024)8 SCC 149; Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka reported in (2007)4 SCC 415; and H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka reported in (2023)9 SCC 581. In the case of H. D. SUNDARA (supra), the Apex Court has summarized the principles governing exercise of appellate jurisdiction -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221 CRL.A No. 200082 of 2022 HC-KAR while dealing with an appeal against judgment of acquittal under section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure as under:
"8. ...8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."
15. In the case of BABU SAHEBGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS (supra) it is observed that it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221 CRL.A No. 200082 of 2022 HC-KAR interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles. The same are:
"1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and
3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."
16. The alleged incident took place on 02.03.2017 at 12:30 noon, but the complaint came to be filed on 12.03.2017 at 18:00 hours. On the basis of this complaint, Sub-Inspector of Turvihal Police Station registered the case in Crime No.38/2017 against the accused persons for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act and submitted FIR to the Court at 10:45 a.m. In FIR column 3(c) the Investigating Officer
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221 CRL.A No. 200082 of 2022 HC-KAR has not assigned any reasons for delay in filing the complaint.
17. PW.1 has not whispered anything in her chief- examination as to delay in filing the complaint. PW.9 has also not whispered anything as to inordinate delay of more than 10 days in filing the complaint. PW.2-Kamanth the husband of PW.1 is not eyewitness to the incident, but only at the instance of PW.1, he has written the complaint as per Ex.P1. PW.1 has deposed as to the transactions regarding sheep and deposed as to the abusive words used by the accused. According to the complainant, PW.5- Amarappa is one of the eyewitness to the incident, but he has not supported to the case of the prosecution.
18. PW.8-Vithal, has deposed in his evidence that, at about four years back one day at 12:30 p.m. accused No.2 and another were quarrelling with Sharadamma. Accused No.1 abused to Sharadamma as "CqÀ« ®A¨ÁtÂ, UÀ§Äâ eÁw ¸ÀƼÉ". The quarrel took place regarding selling of
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221 CRL.A No. 200082 of 2022 HC-KAR sheep, at that time, he intervened and pacified the quarrel.
19. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of Vitthal-PW.8 on 16.03.2017 after lapse of four days from the date of filing of complaint. Though the Investigating Officer has recorded the evidence, but submitted statement of this witness to the Court on 23.05.2017 at the time of filing the charge-sheet. The delay in recording the statement of eyewitness-Vithal has not been explained by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that PW.8 was present at the time of incident. Accordingly, the evidence of PW.1 has not substantiated by any other independent witness.
20. The Trial Court at paragraph No.26 of its judgment has observed as under:
"26. In the instant case, there is no nexus between the evidence of PW-1 and 2 and the case of prosecution and same are in a triangular way leading
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221 CRL.A No. 200082 of 2022 HC-KAR to contradiction to each other. From the tenor of evidence of PW-1 and 2, it is crystal clear that there is a dispute with regard to repayment of money between the accused persons and the PW-1 on purchase of lambs, as such, in order to take revenge and harass the accused persons by taking undue advantage of their caste, they have foisted this false case against the accused persons. There is no document to show that there is an oral agreement or promise by the accused persons to pay the amount after Bakar-Eid after having taken 120 lambs from PW-1. PW-2 has stated that he was on duty on that day and he has not lodged any complaint. Whereas PW-1 has stated that there was verbal exchange with regard to repayment of money and the accused persons have abused and insulted her. There is serious discrepancy with regard to alleged abusive words uttered by the accused persons. There is no corroboration from the evidence of PW-1, 2 and the prosecution story with regard to abusive words alleged to have been uttered by the accused persons. Neither the PW-1 nor the PW-2 have deposed anything as to why there was delay of more than 10 days in reporting the alleged incident. There is no satisfactory explanation either from PW-1 or from PW-2. This creates serious doubt on the veracity of the evidence of PW-1 and 2, who have deposed contradictory to each other. In the result, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused persons are acceptable. Unless, the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused cannot be convicted. There is serious animosity between the PW-1 with that of the accused persons with regard to repayment of money on account of purchase of lambs. This being the scenario, except the interested evidence of PW-1 and 2, there is no other independent eye witness to corroborate their version. As discussed supra, in the absence of any corroboration from the independent eye witness and the fact that version of prosecution is not supported
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221 CRL.A No. 200082 of 2022 HC-KAR by the PW-1, 2 and other witnesses, accused persons cannot be held guilty. In the circumstances, foisting of false case by complainant against accused persons cannot be ruled out considering the delay in reporting the alleged incident and tenor of evidence of PW-1 and 2. There are number of inconsistencies, contradictions, omissions and improvements in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and lack of corroboration from the independent eye witness. Thus, prosecution failed to bring home the alleged guilt of the accused persons to the hilt as required under law without any ambiguity. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons to the hilt beyond all reasonable doubt for any of ingredients of the above offences and always the benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused persons and accordingly it has been given. Hence, points No.1 to 3 are answered in the negative."
21. On re-examination, re-consideration and re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record and keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and also the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, I do not find any legal or factual error in the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221 CRL.A No. 200082 of 2022 HC-KAR Point No.2:
22. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE SDU/RSP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 21 CT-BH