Karnataka High Court
Smt. Yallavva D/O Vasappa Chori vs The State Through Addl. Spp Ors on 6 February, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:899
CRL.A No. 3604 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3604 OF 2012 (A)
BETWEEN:
SMT. YALLAVVA D/O VASAPPA CHORI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: STAFF NURSE,
OLD HOSPITAL, NEAR DHO OFFICE,
SHIVAJI CHOWK, BIJAPUR-586101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HULEPPA HEROOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE THROUGH
ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
Digitally signed HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
by SHIVAKUMAR CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA.
HIREMATH
Location: HIGH 2. SHOBHA D/O LAXMANAPPA NYAMAGOUDAR,
COURT OF AGE: 39 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
OCC: NURSE IN GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL,
BIJAPUR.
3. MANJULA S/O LAXMANAPPA NYAMAGOUDAR,
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: NURSE IN GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL,
BIJAPUR.
4. LATHA S/O ASHOK SANSHI
AGE: 20 YEARS,
OCC: NURSE IN GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:899
CRL.A No. 3604 of 2012
BIJAPUR,
ALL R/O. GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL
NURSE QUARTERS, BIJAPUR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE
FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 372 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
(A) PERUSE AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 27.03.2012 IN THE SPECIAL CASE NO.40/2009
DELIVERED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE AND II ADDL. DIST. AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIJAPUR. (B)CONVICT THE ACCUSED /
RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 504, R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC AND FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(x) OF SCHEDULED
CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES AND (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITY) ACT, 1989 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
The de-facto complainant is before this Court under
Section 372 of Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment and order of
acquittal dated 27.03.2012, passed by the Court of Special
Judge/II Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur (for short
'Trial Court') in Special Case No.40/2009, wherein,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:899
respondent Nos.2 to 4 have been acquitted for the
offences punishable under Section 504 read with Section
34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Casts and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent
No.1 and also learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.2 to 4.
3. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein were charge
sheeted for the aforesaid offences by Gandhi Chowk Police
Station, Vijayapur. The appellant and respondent Nos.2 to
4 were all working as nurses in District Government
Hospital, Vijayapur as on the date of the alleged incident.
The allegations against respondent Nos.2 to 4/accused is
that on 03.06.2009 at about 1.30 p.m., accused had
picked up quarrel with de-facto complainant regarding
collecting water from a water tap and had abused her
using filthy language touching her caste and had
intentionally insulted her. In the said proceedings,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:899
accused after appearing before the Trial Court had claimed
to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to substantiate its
charges against respondent Nos.2 to 4/accused had
examined in all ten charge sheet witnesses as PW.1 to
PW.10 and got marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13.
On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence was led,
however, two documents were got marked as Exs.D1 and
D2. Thereafter, the Trial Court heard the arguments
addressed on both sides and by judgment and order dated
27.03.2012, acquitted respondent Nos.2 to 4/accused for
the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant/de-facto
complainant is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant having
reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum
submits that the Trial Court was not justified in acquitting
the accused/respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein since the
material evidence available on record prima facie makes
NC: 2025:KHC-K:899
out a case for the charge sheeted offences. He submits
that the Trial Court has erred while appreciating the oral
and documentary evidence placed before it and thereby
has committed an error in acquitting the
accused/respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein. Accordingly, he
prays to allow the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.2 to 4/accused has argued in support of
the impugned judgment and order and prays to dismiss
the appeal.
7. The de-facto complainant has been examined in
the present case as PW.1. PW.2 and PW.4 are said to be
the panch witnesses for spot panchanama - Ex.P2 and
PW.3 and PW.6 are said to be eyewitnesses to the alleged
incident. PW.5, PW.7 and PW.8 are also eyewitnesses to
the incident in question. PW.9 is the Tahsildar and PW.10
is the Investigating Officer in the present case. Ex.P1 is
the complaint submitted by PW.1, based on which FIR was
registered against accused for the alleged offences.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:899
Though the alleged incident had taken place on
03.06.2009, the first information was submitted only on
05.06.2009. In the first information, the date has been
mentioned in the hand writing of PW.1 as 05.06.2009.
Explanation was sought to be given by PW.1 that though
she had approached the police on 03.06.2009, the police
had not received her complaint and subsequently on
05.06.2009, they had received the complaint. The Trial
Court has not believed the same for the reason that the
husband of PW.1 was a police constable working in the
very same Police Station and therefore, it becomes
doubtful that her complaint was not received in the Police
Station. In addition to the same, in the first information,
the date of complaint is mentioned as 05.06.2009 and
therefore, it becomes doubtful that on 03.06.2009 itself
the complainant had approached the police. The delay in
approaching the police for registration of FIR is therefore
not properly explained in the present case.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:899
8. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence
of PW.1, who is the de-facto complainant, PW.3 and PW.6,
who are alleged eyewitnesses, has held that there are
inconsistencies in the evidence of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.6,
with regard to the spot of crime and therefore a serious
doubt arises about the presence of the alleged
eyewitnesses at the spot of crime. PW.5, PW.7 and PW.8,
who are other eyewitnesses to the incident in question,
have not supported the case of the prosecution and
therefore, they have been treated as hostile witnesses.
PW.2 and PW.4, who are panch witnesses to the spot
panchanama also have turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution. It is under these circumstances, the Trial
Court has proceeded to acquit the accused/respondent
Nos.2 to 4 for the charge sheeted offences, holding that
the prosecution has failed to prove its charges against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.
9. It is trite that the judgment and order of
acquittal cannot be lightly interfered in an appeal, unless
NC: 2025:KHC-K:899
the same is found to be perverse in nature or has been
passed without properly appreciating the material
evidence placed before the Court. In the case on hand, I
do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and
order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, which calls for
interference by this Court. Therefore, I do not find any
merit in this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
SRT
CT:PK
