Karnataka High Court
Sri.Babu Kalloli Kurade vs State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2333
CRL.A No. 100255 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100255 OF 2019 (A)
BETWEEN:
SRI BABU KALLOLI KURADE.
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MUGALKOD, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591317.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY KUDACHI POLICE,
NOW REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
2. SRI HANAMANT SHIVAPPA KULIGOD,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MUGALKHOD, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591317.
Digitally
VIJAYALAXMI signed by
M BHAT VIJAYALAXMI
M BHAT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2- SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 (4) OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN SPL. CASE NO.151/2015
ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE &
SPECIAL COURT UNDER POCSO ACT & SC/ST (POA) ACT AT
BELAGAVI AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT / ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DTD.08/04/2019 MADE IN SPL. CASE NO.151/2015
PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE &
SPECIAL COURT UNDER POCSO ACT & SC/ST (POA) ACT AT
BELAGAVI AS THE SAME BEING ERRONEOUS AND NOT
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2333
CRL.A No. 100255 of 2019
SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE
ACCUSED / RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES U/S
323, 325, 504, 506 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(X) OF SC/ST PA ACT,
1989 LEVELED AGAINST HIM THE ABOVE CASE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.
by the de-facto complainant with a prayer to set aside the
Judgment and order of acquittal dated 08.04.2019 passed
in Special Case No.151/2015 by the Court of III Additional
District and Sessions Judge and Special Court under
POCSO Act and SC/ST (POA) Act, Belagavi (for short, 'the
Trial Court')
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. Respondent No.2 herein was tried before the
Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 323,
325, 504 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. In order to prove its case against
respondent No.2, the prosecution had examined 09
witnesses before the Trial Court as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2333
marked 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. On behalf of
defence, no evidence was led. The Trial Court after hearing
the arguments addressed by both sides, vide the
impugned Judgment and order dated 08.04.2019 passed
in Special Case No.151/2015 had acquitted the 2nd
respondent/ accused for the aforesaid offences. Being
aggrieved by the said Judgment and order of acquittal, the
de-facto complainant is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-
de-facto complainant having reiterated the grounds urged
in the appeal memorandum submits that the Trial Court
was not justified in acquitting the 2nd respondent for the
alleged offences. He submits that merely for the reason
that independent witnesses have not been examined, the
Trial Court could not have acquitted the 2nd respondent.
5. In order to substantiate its case and prove its
charges against the 2nd respondent, the prosecution had
examined 09 witnesses before the Trial Court as P.W.1 to
P.W.9. P.W.1 is the complainant and P.W.2 is his
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2333
grandson. P.W.5 is the son of complainant, who is also the
scribe of complaint/Ex.P.1.
6. P.W.1 during the course of his examination has
stated that he belongs to Hindu-Holer caste, which is a
scheduled caste. He was cultivating the land of accused.
On the date of incident, he had approached the accused
and requested him to pay money for the purpose of
meeting the treatment expenses of his son, who had met
with an accident. The accused had refused to give the
money and abused him using filthy language by referring
to his caste. At that time, his grandson P.W.2 came to his
rescue and the accused allegedly also assaulted him and
thereafter he gave a complaint to the Police as per Ex.P.1.
In the cross examination, this witness admitted that
accused had paid money for the work done by him and he
also has admitted that the accused had infact paid a sum
of Rs.50,000/- in excess. He also admitted that at the time
of incident there were about 100 persons present near the
spot of incident.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2333
7. P.W.2 during the course of his cross-examination
has stated that he was not aware of the financial
transaction between P.W.1 and accused. Even this witness
has admitted that at the time of incident many people had
gathered near the spot of incident. The prosecution has
not recorded the statement of any one of the people who
had gathered near the spot of incident. P.W.4 is said to be
an eyewitness to the incident in question. However, this
witness has turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
P.W.5 is the son of P.W.1. He has stated that he came to
know about the incident after P.W.1 had informed him and
he had written the complaint as per the instructions given
by P.W.1. He also has admitted that he came to the
Hospital after he was informed about the incident.
8. Except P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 who are the
members of same family, no other witnesses have
supported the case of prosecution. Infact the prosecution
has not examined any other independent witnesses. The
Trial Court having appreciated the oral and documentary
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2333
evidence produced before it has arrived at a conclusion
that except the interested witnesses, no other witnesses
have supported the case of prosecution and therefore has
proceeded to acquit the accused of the charge sheeted
offences.
9. From an overall re-appreciation and oral and
documentary evidence produced by the prosecution in
support of its case before the Trial Court, it cannot be said
that the view taken by the Trial Court is illegal and
unreasonable or perverse in nature. Merely for the reason
that a second view can also be taken in the matter, there
cannot be any interference as against the Judgment and
order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Under the
circumstances, I do not see any good ground to entertain
this appeal. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
