Karnataka High Court
Sidram Atmaram Kamble vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 August, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9670
CRL.A No. 100040 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100040 OF 2019 (A)
BETWEEN:
SIDRAM ATMARAM KAMBLE,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOLIGUDDA, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.B. DEYANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH KUDACHI POLICE STATION,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
RAKESH HIGH COURT BENCH DHARWAD.
S
HARIHAR
Digitally signed by
2. SHRI SHIVANAGOUDA TAMMANGOUDA PATIL,
RAKESH S HARIHAR
Location:
HIGHCOURT OF AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD R/O: KOLIGUDDA, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SHRI GOUDAPPAGOUDA LAKSHMANGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOLIGUDDA, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. SHRI GOUDAPPAGOUDA
BASAGOUDA BIRADAR PATIL,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9670
CRL.A No. 100040 of 2019
HC-KAR
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOLIGUDDA, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SHRI SHIVANAGOUDA SHANKARGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOLIGUDDA, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. SHRI SOMANAGOUDA SHANKARGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOLIGUDDA, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR
R2 TO R6)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
12.09.2018 PASSED BY THE III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST ACT,
BELAGAVI IN SPECIAL CASE NO.16/2012 AND CONVICT AND
SENTENCE THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 6 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 147, 323, 504, 506,
427 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(X) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 1989, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9670
CRL.A No. 100040 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
The de facto - complainant has filed this appeal under
Section 372 of Cr.P.C., assailing the judgment and order dated
12.09.2018 passed by the Court of III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, & Special Court for SC / ST Act, Belagavi in
Special Case No.16/2012 acquitting the respondent Nos.2 to 6
for offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427
read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 were tried before the Court
of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, & Special Court for
SC / ST Act, Belagavi in Special Case No.16/2012 for offences
punishable under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427 read with
Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial
Judge vide the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated
12.09.2018, had acquitted respondent Nos.2 to 6 of all the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9670
HC-KAR
charge sheeted offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the de
facto complainant is before this Court in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant having reiterated
the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, has prayed to
allow appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.2 to 6 has opposed the prayer made in the appeal.
6. Perusal of the material on record will go to show
that the prosecution in order to prove its charges against the
accused had examined eight charge sheet witnesses in the
present case as PW1 to PW8 and also had got marked 12
documents as exhibits P1 to P12. On behalf of the accused, no
defence evidence was led. PW1 in the present case is the Police
Constable and PW2 is the Panchayat Development Officer. PW3
and PW5 to PW8 are all members of the same family, who are
the alleged victims in the present case. PW4 is the mahazar
witness, who is the sole independent witness examined in the
present case. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 are not material in
the present case. PW4, who is the panch to the spot mahazar,
has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9670
HC-KAR
7. PW3 and PW5 to PW8 have alleged that on the
alleged date of incident, the accused persons had referred to
their caste and had abused them and also had assaulted PW3
and PW5. However, the prosecution has not examined any
independent witnesses in whose presence, the accused persons
allegedly had abused PW3 and PW5 to PW8, referring to their
caste. Though PW3 and PW5 are said to be the injured victims
in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the said
injuries by producing the wound certificate of the injured. Even
the doctor who had medically examined the victims has not
been examined in the present case. The Investigation Officer is
also not examined in the present case by the prosecution. The
trial in the case had commenced in the year 2012 and PW1 was
examined on 19.01.2012. For a period of more than 6 months,
the prosecution had failed to keep the material witnesses
present before the Court for the purpose of examination. It is
under these circumstances, the Trial Court has rejected the
prayer made by the Public Prosecutor to secure the presence of
material charge sheeted witnesses. I do not find any illegality
or irregularity in the same. The prosecution has failed to prove
the charge sheeted offences by producing necessary
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9670
HC-KAR
documentary and oral evidence against the accused and
therefore, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was fully
justified in acquitting the accused of the charge sheet offences.
I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned
judgment and order of the acquittal. It is trite that unless the
judgment and order of the acquittal is found to be perverse and
illegal, in normal circumstances, this Court should not interfere
with the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Under the
circumstances, the following:
ORDER
Criminal appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
RSH / CT:BCK
