[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Siddaraju S vs State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2025

                                                  -1-
                                                                NC: 2025:KHC:49996
                                                             CRL.A No. 915 of 2014


                       HC-KAR



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                              DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
                                                BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 915 OF 2014 (C)


                       BETWEEN:

                       1.    SIDDARAJU S.
                             S/O MAHASETTI,
                             AGED 30 YEARS,
                             LAW STUDENT,
                             R/AT UPPALAGARE VILLAGE,
                             MALAVALLI TALUK,
                             MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.

                       2.    KUMARA S.
                             S/O MAHASETTI,
                             AGED 28 YEARS,
                             RUNNING A MILK DAIRY,
                             R/AT UPPALAGARE VILLAGE,
                             MALAVALLI TALUK,
                             MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.
                                                                     ...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: HIGH COURT   (BY SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR A. V., ADV.)
OF KARNATAKA

                       AND:

                       STATE OF KARNATAKA
                       BY KIRUGALALU P.S.,
                       REPRESENTED BY SPP,
                       HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
                       BANGALORE-560 001.
                                                                    ...RESPONDENT
                       (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP.)
                                 -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:49996
                                        CRL.A No. 915 of 2014


HC-KAR



      THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:1.10.14 PASSED BY THE I
ADDL.DIST. AND S.J., MANDYA IN SPL.C.NO.64/13 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 323 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1)(X)XI) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
1989 R/W 34 OF IPC AND THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE
SENTENCED TO PAY A FINE OF RS.1,000/- EACH IN DEFAULT
S.I. FOR ONE MONTH FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323 R/W 34 OF
IPC AND ETC.

     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 appellants have preferred this appeal against the

judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by

the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in

Spl. C. No.64/2013 dated 01.10.2014.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that

the Dy.S.P, Malavalli Sub-Division, Malavalli submitted the

charge-sheet against the accused for the offences

punishable under Section 323, 354, 504, 506 read with 34

NC: 2025:KHC:49996

HC-KAR

of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of

SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on

01.08.2013 at about 06.30 p.m. near Milk Produce

Women's Co-operative Society Ltd., at Maliyuru village

when the complainant was taking the milk with the help of

CW2-Nanjamma and at that time accused Nos.1 and 2

came and asked her with regard to giving of bonus of five

years and at that time complainant requested the accused

No.1 to come after 5 minutes and at that time accused

No.1 questioned with regard to the delay of one month

and the complainant told that her children are not well and

thereby she is not able to write the document and at that

time accused Nos.1 and 2 abused her in filthy language as

¯ÉÆÃ¥Àgï ªÀÄÄAqÉ, ¸ÀÆ¼ÉÃ ªÀÄÄAqÉ, ºÉÆ¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAqÉ by taking her caste

knowing fully well that she belongs to SC community and

humiliated her and insulted her in the public view and

accused No.1 slapped on her cheek and also assaulted on

her left neck and with an intention to outrage her modesty

NC: 2025:KHC:49996

HC-KAR

caught hold her nighty, dragged her and torn her nighty

and also threatened the complainant stating that they will

kill her if she gave a complaint to the police and

accordingly after arrival of her husband the complainant

had been to the police station and filed complaint basing

upon which the Kirugavalu police registered a case and

thereafter, Dy.S.P, Malavalli, took up further investigation

and collected the evidence and submitted charge-sheet

against the accused for the above said offences. After

filing the charge-sheet the case was registered in

Spl.C No.64/2013 and accused Nos.1 and 2 were enlarged

on bail.

5. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court has

framed charges against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the

alleged commission of offences, same was read over and

explained to accused Nos.1 and 2. Having understood the

same, accused Nos.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed

to be tried.

NC: 2025:KHC:49996

HC-KAR

6. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all, 13

witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW13. 9 documents

were marked as Exhibits P1 to P9. One material object

marked as MO.1. On closure of prosecution side evidence,

statements of the accused under Section 313 of Code of

Criminal Procedure were recorded. Accused Nos.1 and 2

have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witness.

However, they have not chosen to lead any defence

evidence on their behalf.

7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the

trial Court has convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the

offences punishable under Section 323 read with 34 of IPC

and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC and ST (Prevention

of Atrocities), Act, 1989 and accused Nos.1 and 2 are

acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of

Indian Penal Code.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants would

submit that, the trial judge has not properly appreciated

NC: 2025:KHC:49996

HC-KAR

the evidence on record in proper perspective. The trial

judge grossly erred in assessing the evidence of eye-

witnesses examined as PW2 to PW4, PW11 to PW13.

Though independent witnesses have not supported,

merely on the evidence of PW1 and PW8, the trial judge

has convicted both the appellants. The trial judge has

failed to appreciate the evidence of PW1 who admitted

that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint

and reasons for such delay have not been explained.

9. It is submitted that the accused has questioned

PW1 regarding issuance of bonus, which was

misappropriated by the PW1, in this regard the

Co-operative Development Officer has lodged a complaint

against PW1. When the accused has demanded for giving

arrears of bonus, PW1 instead of paying bonus amount,

with a view to take revenge she lodged a false complaint

against the accused. On all these grounds, it is sought for

allowing this appeal.

NC: 2025:KHC:49996

HC-KAR

10. As against this, the learned High Court

Government Pleader Sri.R.Rangaswamy, would submit

that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence

on record in accordance with law and facts and sought for

dismissal of this appeal.

11. Having heard the arguments on both sides and

perusal of materials the following points would arise for

my consideration:

i) Whether the trial Court has committed

an error in convicting the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 323 read with 34 of

Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC

and ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989?

ii) What order?

Regarding Point No.1:

12. I have examined the materials placed before

this Court. It is the case of the prosecution that on

NC: 2025:KHC:49996

HC-KAR

01.08.2013 at about 06.30 p.m. near Milk Produce

Women's Co-operative Society Ltd., at Maliyuru village

when the complainant was taking the milk with the help of

CW2-Nanjamma and at that time accused Nos.1 and 2

came and asked her with regard to the giving of bonus of

five years and at that time complainant requested the

accused No.1 to come after 5 minutes and at that time

accused No.1 questioned with regard to the delay of one

month and the complainant told that her children are not

well and thereby she is not able to write the document and

at that time accused Nos.1 and 2 abused her in filthy

language as ¯ÉÆÃ¥Àgï ªÀÄÄAqÉ, ¸ÀÆ¼ÉÃ ªÀÄÄAqÉ, ºÉÆ¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAqÉ by taking her

caste knowing fully well that she belongs to SC community

and humiliated her and insulted her in the public view and

accused No.1 slapped on her cheek and also assaulted on

her left neck and with an intention to outrage her modesty

caught hold her nighty and dragged her and torn her

nighty and also threatened the complainant stating that

they will kill her if she gives complaint to the police and

NC: 2025:KHC:49996

HC-KAR

accordingly after arrival of her husband the complainant

had been to the police station and filed a complaint basing

upon which the Kirugavalu police registered a case and

accordingly, has filed a charge-sheet against the accused

for the aforesaid offences.

13. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, 13

witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW13. 9 documents

were marked as Exhibits P1 to P9. One material object

marked as MO.1. According to the case of the prosecution,

PW2 to PW4, PW11 to PW13 are the eyewitness to this

incident. All these witnesses have not supported the case

of the prosecution and all these witnesses treated as

hostile witnesses.

14. The Learned Public Prosecutor has cross-

examined them after treating them as hostile witnesses

with the permission of the Court. Even during the cross-

examination of Public Prosecutor, PW2 to PW4 and PW11

to PW13 have categorically denied the statement said to

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49996

HC-KAR

have been recorded by the Investigating Officer under

Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which are

marked as Exhibit P3 to P5 and P9.

15. PW12 and PW13 said to be the attestors to the

mahazar witnesses, have not supported the case of the

prosecution.

16. PW8-Dr.K.Mahesha, has deposed that he has

examined the injured and issued the wound certificate as

per Exhibit P6.

17. PW9-M.R. Rajesh, Tahashildar has deposed

regarding the issuance of Caste Certificate as per Exhibit

P7.

18. PW10 - Obedulla Khan, the police constable,

has deposed as to the submission of FIR to the Court.

19. PW5 to PW7 are the police officials who speak

about their respective investigation.

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49996

HC-KAR

20. Now the question is whether the sole interested

testimony of PW1 along with the Medical Officer PW8, is

sufficient to convict the accused for the alleged

commission of offence or not? In this regard, it is

necessary to mention here as to the complaint Exhibit P1,

filed by PW1. In Exhibit P1, PW1 has stated as under:

             "ತಮ    ಮುಖ ಾ         ಸುವ ೇ ೆಂದ ೆ ಮ ಯೂರು          ಾ ಮದ ಆ

     ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಜ ಾಂಗದವ ಾದ ನನ% &ೕ'ೆ                    ಾಂಕ 01.08.2013 ರ

     (ಾಯಂ)ಾಲ       6.30    ರ     +ೈ-ಯ       .ಾಲು     ಅಳ1ೆ    2ಾ3    )ಾಯ

     4ವ 5ಸು ರ

6 ು ಾಗ ಪಕ8ದ ಾ ಮದ ಉಪ:ಲ ೇ- )ೊಪ:ಲು ಾ ಮದ 4 ಾ;<ಾದ

ಉ=ಾ:ರ ಜ ಾಂಗದ ಎ?. ;ದ@ ಾಜು AB 2ಾದCೆDE ಎಂಬುವವನು ಮ5Gೆ +ೈ-

ಒಳ ೆ ನು I Jೋನ? Kಷಯ ಬ ೆI )ೇ ಾ@ಗ ಾನು ಅನಂತರ ಬ4% ಎಂದು

.ೇ ದ)ೆ8 ನನ% &ೕ'ೆ ಗ'ಾMೆ 2ಾ3 'ೋಪN, ಸೂGೆ ಮುಂ+ೆ ೆಂದು ೆಂದು ಇನೂ%

ಇ1ಾ .ೊಲಸು ಪದಗ ಂದ Jೈದು ನನ% &ೕ'ೆ )ೈ 2ಾ3 .ೊ+ೆದು ಬMೆE ಹ-ದು

.ಾQರು1ಾ6 ೆ. ಅನಂತರ ಮ1ೆ6 .ೋ ಅ ೇ ಾ ಮದ ಕು2ಾN AB 2ಾದCೆDE

ಮತು6 ಯುವಕರನು% ಕ ೆದು)ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ;ದ@ ಾಜು ಎಂಬವನು .ೊ'ೆಯ .ೊ'ೆಯ Sಾ

ಎಂಬುವವ- ೆ 4ಮ ೆ ಇTEರJೇ)ಾದ ೆ ಾU ಎಷEರಮDE ರJೇ)ೆಂದು ನV ನVಮ ಮ

Sಾ ಯ ಬ ೆI ಇನು% ಹಲ ಾರು ಪದಗ ಂದ Jೈದು )ೊ'ೆ Jೆದ-)ೆ .ಾQರು1ಾ6 ೆ.

ಅದ)ೆ8 ಾನು W ೕಸ- ೆ ದೂರು )ೊಡು1ೆ6ೕ ೆ ಎಂದು .ೇ ದ@)ೆ8 ಅಂತಹ

W ೕಸರನು% ಎಷುE ೋ3 ADEರು1ೆ6ೕ ೆ ಎಂದು .ೇ ರು1ಾ6 ೆ ಮತು6 ಆ ಾ ೆI

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49996

HC-KAR

ಬಂದು ;ಬXಂ ವಗ ದವ-ಗೂ .ಾಗೂ ಉ1ಾ:ದಕ- ೆ ತುಂJಾ 1ೊಂದ ೆ

)ೊಡು ರು1ಾ6 6ರು1ಾ6 ೆ. ಆದುದ@-ಂದ 1ಾವ ಗಳY ನನ ೆ ಸೂಕ6 ರZ[ೆ ಮತು6 ಾಯ

ೊರQ;)ೊಡJೇ)ೆಂದು ತಮ =ಾ ಥ ೆ 2ಾ3)ೊಳY]1ೆ6ೕ ೆ".

21. The alleged incident took place on 01.08.2013

at 06.30 p.m. The complaint came to be filed on

02.08.2013 at 16.30 hours. The FIR Exhibit P8, on the

basis of this complaint, case was registered in Crime No.

101/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 323,

354, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and

Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC and ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989. Exhibit P8 FIR reveals that the FIR

reached the Court on 03.08.2013 at 02.05 p.m.

22. PW1-Jayamala has deposed in her evidence

that she was working as a Secretary of Milk Produce

Women's Co-operative Society Ltd., at Maliyuru Village

since 8 years and she belongs to Adi Karnataka Scheduled

Caste and she knows the accused for about 20 years and

that on 01.04.2013 at about 06.30 p.m. when Nanjamma

was taking milk and she was noting the same at that time

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49996

HC-KAR

the accused came to the Diary and asked with regard to

the bonus and when she stated that she is unable to write

all documents at one time and asked them to come later

and at that time accused abused her in filthy language and

humiliated her and also slapped on her cheek and caught

hold of her nighty, dragged her and torn her nighty,

dishonored her and also threatened her of dire

consequences. The villagers Lalithamma, Rudrappa and

Puttasiddamma who had been to the spot for giving milk

separated the scuffle and thereafter she locked the society

and went to her house and her husband was not present

and he came to the house at about 09.00 p.m. and she

told the incident to him and he told that they will go in the

morning and thereafter they went to the Kirugavalu police

station and filed a complaint on 03.08.2013 and police

came and conducted a spot mahzar as per Exhibit P2.

23. PW8 - Dr. Mahesh has deposed regarding the

issuance of wound certificate and examination of the

accused. The wound certificate is marked as Exhibit P6.

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49996

HC-KAR

The wound certificate reveals that Smt.Jayamala W/o

Guruswami went to the hospital with the history of assault

on 01.08.2013 at about 06.30 p.m. The doctor has

examined this injured on 02.08.2013 and found the injury

No.1 - Tenderness over the left cheek.

injury No.2. Tenderness over the left side of the neck. No

external injuries. The doctor has opined that all injuries

are simple in nature. In Exhibit P6 the medical officer-PW8

has not mentioned the name of the accused, who has

assaulted PW1. Even in the evidence of PW8, he has not

whispered anything against this accused.

24. It has come in the evidence of PW1 that, he has

not whispered anything as to the delay in filing the

complaint. Though the police have registered the case on

02.08.2013, they have not submitted the FIR to the Court

at the earliest point of time. Only on the next day of filing

the complaint i.e., on 03.08.2013, the Investigating

Officer has submitted the First Information Report to the

Court at 2.05 p.m. as per Exhibit P8. The FIR reveals that

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49996

HC-KAR

in column No.15, the date and time of dispatch to the

Court is shown as 02.08.2013 at 05.00 p.m. The

Investigating Officer has not explained anything as to the

delay in dispatching the FIR to the Court. If, really the

accused has assaulted PW1 as alleged by the prosecution,

she could have take treatment by the Medical Officer at

the earliest point of time. On that day, she did not go to

the hospital. Even on the date of incident, she has not

lodged complaint to the police. Absolutely there is no

evidence as to the delay in taking treatment by the

Medical Officer and also filing complaint against the

accused. It is an admitted fact that PW1 being a Secretary

has to pay the arrears of bonus to the accused.

25. It is also admitted fact that accused have

demanded the arrears of bonus. When the accused have

demanded the bonus, only after discussing with her

husband and as on after thought, she lodged a complaint

after lapse of 2 days from the date of alleged incident,

which will create reasonable doubt as to the conduct of

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49996

HC-KAR

PW1. All the material eye-witnesses have not supported

the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has not

elicited any favourable answers from them to substantiate

the case of the prosecution. Even the prosecution has

failed to elicit why these material eye- witnesses have not

supported the case of the prosecution. In the absence of

cogent, corroborative and supporting evidence of eye-

witnesses, the sole interested testimony of PW1, which is

not corroborated by medical evidence and also for want of

proper explanation of delay in filing the complaint, will

create doubt about the alleged incident. Under the given

set of circumstances, it is not safe to convict the accused

on the basis of sole and interested testimony of PW1.

Accordingly, the trial Court has not properly appreciated

the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts.

On re-appreciation of entire evidence on record, I do not

find any cogent, convincing, corroborative, trustworthy

legal evidence before the Court. Hence, I answer point

No.1 in the affirmative.

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49996

HC-KAR

Regarding Point No.2:

26. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions,

I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) Appeal is allowed.

ii) The judgment of conviction and order on

sentence passed by the I Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Mandya in Spl.C.No.64/2013

dated 01.10.2014, is set aside.

iii) Accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the

offence under Section 323 read with 34 of Indian

Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of

SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.