State Of Karnataka vs Naganagouda S/O Veeranagouda Patil
2025 Latest Caselaw 2335 Kant

Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Naganagouda S/O Veeranagouda Patil on 13 January, 2025

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                    -1-
                                                                 NC: 2025:KHC-D:522
                                                           CRL.A No. 100123 of 2018




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                                 DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
                                                  BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100123 OF 2018 (A)

                        BETWEEN:

                        STATE OF KARNATAKA
                        REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
                        SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD,
                        THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE
                        PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                        ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
                        HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                        DHARWAD BENCH.
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
                        (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                        AND:

                        1.   NAGANAGOUDA S/O. VEERANAGOUDA PATIL
                             AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                             R/O: KELAGERI, DYAMAVVANGUDI ONI,
                             DHARWAD.

Digitally signed by B
K
                        2.   SIDDARAMAGOUDA S/O. VEERANAGOUDA PATIL,
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
                             AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
                             R/O: KELAGERI, DYAMAVVANGUDI ONI,
Date: 2025.01.16
09:49:43 +0530               DHARWAD.

                        3.   MALLANAGOUDA S/O. RUDRAGOUDA PATIL,
                             AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: TRUCK DRIVER,
                             R/O: KELAGERI, ANJANEYA NAGAR,
                             4TH CROSS, DHARWAD.

                        4.   BASANAGOUDA S/O. VEERANAGOUDA PATIL,
                             AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: ARMY,
                             R/O: KELAGERI, DHARWAD.
                                                               ...RESPONDENTS
                        (BY SRI. MANJUNATH A. KARIGANNAVAR AND
                         SRI. MAHANTESH M.KORIMATH, ADVOCATES)
                                  -2-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC-D:522
                                        CRL.A No. 100123 of 2018




      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) &
(3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AND TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
18.11.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRIT & SESSIONS & SPL.
JUDGE, DHARWAD IN SPL.SC.ST.NO.19/2013 AND TO CONVICT
THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 323, 504, 506, 427 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC AND
SECTION 3(i)(x) OF SC/ST ACT.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT
           CHANDANGOUDAR


                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appellant, State of Karnataka, challenges the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.11.2017, passed in Spl. SC/ST No. 19/2013 by the II Additional District and Sessions & Special Judge, Dharwad, whereby the accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the father of the complainant, Rangappa Huligeppanavar, had been residing in a property purchased from the Patil family about 40-50 years ago, where he had constructed a red-tiled house. After his death, the complainant and her brothers began residing in the same house. It is alleged that after Rangappa's death, the accused started harassing the complainant and her brothers, asserting their

NC: 2025:KHC-D:522

ownership over the property, and threatening them to vacate. On 08.01.2013, around 11:00 a.m., accused Nos. 1 to 3, along with their henchmen, arrived at the complainant's house, forcibly dragged her and her brothers out along with their household articles, removed the tiles from the roof, and demolished the northern wall of the house, causing a loss of Rs. 50,000. The accused also abused the complainant and her brothers using filthy language, referring to their caste as they belong to the SC/ST community. Additionally, the accused assaulted the complainant's brothers, C.Ws. 4 and 5, and one Sanna Kariyappa by hitting them with hands and kicking them.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 12, exhibited documents Exs. P.1 to P.14(a), and produced material objects M.O.1 to M.O.3.

4. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of all charges.

5. Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant-State and the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 4.

6 To establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 12. P.W.1 is one of the witnesses to Ex.P.1 (panchanama). P.W.2 is the complainant. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the brothers of P.W.2. P.W.5 is another panch witness to Ex.P.1.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:522

P.Ws. 6 to 8 are cited as eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. P.Ws. 9 and 11 are the investigating officers. P.W.10 is the Tahsildar who issued the caste certificates of both the accused and the complainant. P.W.12 is the engineer from the Public Works Department who is said to have prepared the sketch of the spot as per Ex.P.11.

7. P.W.1 has turned hostile. P.W.5 supported the prosecution's case, but in his cross-examination, he did not specifically state the exact location where the panchanama was conducted by the police.

8. P.W.2, the complainant, supported the prosecution's case and further stated that when P.W.6 came outside the house, accused No.3 assaulted him with an iron rod and also abused him with reference to his caste. In her complaint, however, she did not specify which of the accused assaulted P.W.6 with the iron rod. The iron rod allegedly used in the assault was not seized. P.W.2 also alleged that the accused demolished a portion of the house, but no effort was made by the prosecution to seize the JCB, and the photographs produced did not show any JCB. There was no specific overt act describing how each of the accused dragged P.W.2 out of the house or demolished any portion of the house. Except for the omnibus and general allegations, there were no specific details regarding how or in what manner each accused abused P.W.2, dragged her out of the house, or demolished the house.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:522

9. P.W.3, the brother of P.W.2, reiterated the allegations made by P.W.2 in her examination-in-chief. He stated that the accused dragged C.W.6 and P.W.2, and also assaulted C.W.6 with an iron rod on his left hand and left leg, causing him injuries. However, the prosecution did not provide any evidence to substantiate that C.W.6 sustained injuries from the assault by the accused. Furthermore, C.W.6, who is alleged to have been injured, was not examined by the prosecution to support the allegations against the accused.

10. P.W.4, another brother of P.Ws. 2 and 3, also reiterated the statement given by P.W.2. Like P.W.3, he made only omnibus and general allegations without specifying how or in what manner the accused assaulted and demolished the portion of the house. He also did not provide details on which of the accused assaulted C.W.6 or the nature of the injuries sustained by him.

11. P.Ws. 6 to 8, independent eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, turned hostile, and nothing in their cross-examination helped establish the guilt of the accused. Apart from the self- serving statements of P.Ws. 2 to 4, who claimed that the accused abused them with reference to their caste, the prosecution did not present any independent evidence. P.Ws. 2 to 4, as interested witnesses, alleged that the accused abused them in filthy language, referring to their caste. The independent witnesses, P.Ws. 6 to 8, did not support the prosecution's case. In the complaint, P.W.2 alleged that the accused referred to the complainant's caste as "Bedara," while in her examination-in-chief,

NC: 2025:KHC-D:522

she stated that the accused used the term "Valmiki." This contradiction between the complaint and P.W.2's testimony creates inconsistencies. Moreover, P.Ws. 2 to 4 did not specify which of the accused abused them, making only omnibus and general allegations. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative material to substantiate the allegations against the accused, the Trial Court rightly passed the impugned judgment, holding that the self-serving statements of the interested witnesses, P.Ws. 2 to 4, cannot be the sole basis for convicting the accused of the alleged offences. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the acquittal judgment cannot be interfered with.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

KMS Ct:vh