Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Smt Bebi Alias Sharad Amar Gaonkar on 16 February, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3760
CRL.A No. 100473 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100473 OF 2021 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
HONNAVAR POLICE STATION,
DIST.- UTTARA KANNADA
THROUGH THE ADDL.
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH-580011.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI T. P. MALIPATIL, AGA)
AND:
1. SMT. BEBI ALIAS
SHARAD AMAR GAONKAR
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA R/O JANATA PLOT KERI,
DANDAGAL CHANDAVAR,
HONNAVAR TALUK-581323
Digitally signed by
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL
DISTRICT UTTARA KANNADA
Date: 2024.02.20
10:49:49 +0530
2. DEVI W/O. GANAPUR MUKRI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. JANATA COLONY,
CHANDAVAR-581323,
TQ: HONNAVAR,
DIST: UTTARA KANANDA.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 (1) AND (3) OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 31.03.2021 PASSED
BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3760
CRL.A No. 100473 of 2021
COURT) UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR IN SPECIAL CASE NO.13/2013,
AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
DATED 31.03.2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL COURT) UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR IN
SPECIAL CASE NO.13/2013, AND TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENT
NO.1/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 324 AND 504
OF IPC AND U/S 3(1) (X) OF SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULED
TRIBE ( PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred under section 378(1) and (3)
of the Cr.P.C. by the State with a prayer to set aside the
Judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.03.2021 passed
by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, (Special
Court) Uttara Kannada, Karwar in Special Case
No.13/2013.
2. Heard the learned HCGP on behalf of appellant-
State.
3. It is the case of prosecution that the house of
accused is situated behind the house of complainant and
there is a long standing enmity between two families with
regard to fencing of their properties. On 29.04.2013 at
about 6.00 p.m. on the kachcha road of Janata Plot-Keri,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3760
when the complainant had gone to fetch the water she
found that the accused had thrown thorns on the road,
when the complainant questioned the accused, allegedly
accused abused and assaulted the complainant referring to
her caste in the public. It is in this background, complaint
was lodged, based on which, FIR in Crime No.190/2023
was registered for the offences punishable under Sections
324 and 504 of IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989.
4. After investigation, the Police had filed charge
sheet for the aforesaid offences and accused was tried
before the Trial Court in Special Case No.13/2013 for the
charge sheeted offences. The accused who had appeared
before the Trial Court, claimed to be tried. The prosecution
to prove its charges against the accused, had examined 9
witnesses as P.W.1 to 9 and also got marked 13
documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. On behalf of the accused,
no defence evidence was led. The Trial Court after hearing
the arguments addressed on both side, vide the impugned
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3760
Judgment and order, acquitted the accused for the
offences charged against her. Being aggrieved by the
same, the State is before this Court.
5. Learned HCGP submits that the Trial Court was
not justified in acquitting the accused, more so when
P.W.1 and 3 have supported the case of prosecution. He
also submits that the evidence of P.W.1 and 3 is
corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4.
6. The prosecution in order to prove its charges
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, has in all
examined 09 witnesses before the Trial Court. P.W.1 is the
complainant in the present case and P.W.3 is her
daughter. P.W.4 is the close relative of complainant and
P.W.5 is the son of complainant. P.W.9 is the independent
eyewitness to the incident, who had turned hostile to the
case of prosecution. Except P.W.9, no other independent
witnesses who are living in the neighborhood of the parties
have been examined by the prosecution in the present
case. P.W.1, 3, 4 and 5 are all members of the same
family and they are interested witnesses.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3760
7. P.W.1 who is the complainant in the present
case, had deposed before the Trial Court that on the date
of incident when she had gone to fetch water from the
tank, she noticed accused had thrown thorns on the road
and when she asked the accused to remove the thorns,
the accused abused her and also assaulted her by
referring to her caste and as a result, she had suffered
simple injuries. Ex.P.1 is the complaint lodged by P.W.1.
In the complaint, it is nowhere mentioned that the accused
had thrown thorns on the road and the incident in question
had taken place when the complainant had asked the
accused to remove the thorns, which she had thrown on
the road. Though, in the complaint mentioned that
accused has assaulted P.W.1 with the wooden club on her
shoulder and left hand, there are no corresponding injuries
and only one simple injury is caused on the left forearm of
P.W.1.
8. P.W.1 has deposed that she and P.W.3 had
together gone to fetch water. In the complaint Ex.P.1, she
had stated that when the accused assaulted her, she
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3760
raised a cry and thereafter her daughter P.W.3 came to
the spot. Even P.W.3 has deposed that she and P.W.1 had
together gone to fetch water. This statement of P.W.1 and
3 are contrary to the averments made in the complainant
Ex.P.1.
9. Undisputedly, the complainant and accused are
neighbors' and they have a dispute between themselves
with regard to putting up fence separating their properties.
The only independent witness, who has been examined by
the prosecution as P.W.9, has turned hostile to the case of
prosecution. Though, there are many houses in the
neighborhood, the prosecution has not examined any one
of the neighbors as witness in the present case. P.W.5 who
is the son of P.W.1 admittedly, had not witnessed the
incident and he came to know about the incident only after
his mother. PW.1 was taken to the hospital for treatment.
10. The Trial Court having appreciated all these
aspects of the matter has acquitted the accused for the
offences charged against her. I do not find any patent
illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3760
Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
In an appeal filed against the Judgment and order of
acquittal, even if two views are possible, the view taken by
the trial Court which is favoring accused cannot be
disturbed unless patent illegality and perversity is pointed
out in the Judgment and order of acquittal. Therefore, I do
not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment
and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
In view of disposal of the appeal, pending
application, if any also stands disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CKK
CT:GSM
