Smt.Mahadevi W/O Gurappa Gulagond vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 2881 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt.Mahadevi W/O Gurappa Gulagond vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 January, 2025

Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty

                                                -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC-K:517
                                                      CRL.A No. 200092 of 2019




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                          DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                           BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY


                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200092 OF 2019
                                   (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))
                   BETWEEN:

                   SMT. MAHADEVI W/O GURAPPA GULAGOND
                   AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                   R/O MUTTIHAL, TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
                   DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101
                                                                  ...APPELLANT

                   (BY SRI S. S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed        THROUGH KOLHAR PS, REP, BY ITS
by SHILPA R
TENIHALLI               STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Location: HIGH          ADVOCATE GENERALS OFFICE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA               HIGH COURT BUILDING,
                        KALABURAGI-585107

                   2.   SRI PRAKASH S/O. SHIVAPPA CHALAVADI
                        AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
                        R/O. MUTTIHAL, TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI
                        DIST: VIJAYAPUR
                                                            ...RESPONDENTS

                   (BY SMT. MAYA T. R., HCGP)
                              -2-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC-K:517
                                   CRL.A No. 200092 of 2019




     THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 05.07.2019
PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
VIJAYAPURA IN SPECIAL CASE.(SC/ST) NO.01/2018 FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST ACT & U/SEC. 504 OF
IPC AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE
AFORESAID OFFENCES.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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)

1. The accused in Special Case (SC/ST) No.1/2018 is

before this Court in this appeal filed under Section 374(2)

of Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment and order of conviction

and sentence dated 05.07.2019 passed by the Court of II

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapura (for

short 'Trial Court').

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The appellant herein was charge sheeted for the

offences punishable under Section 504 of IPC and Section

3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

NC: 2025:KHC-K:517

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST

(POA) Act') by the Dy.S.P. of Basavana Bagewadi Police

Station, Vijayapura district. The appellant after appearing

before the Trial Court pursuant to service of summons on

her, had claimed to be tried and therefore, the prosecution

in order to substantiate its charges against the appellant/

accused, had examined nine charge sheet witnesses as

PW.1 to PW.9 and seven documents were marked as

Exs.P1 to P7. Thereafter, the statement of the

appellant/accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was

recorded by the Trial Court. However, no defence

evidence was led on behalf of the appellant nor was any

document got marked in support of the defence.

4. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments

addressed on both sides vide the impugned judgment and

order, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable

under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section

504 of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section

3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the appellant was

NC: 2025:KHC-K:517

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

one year and pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

For the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC, the

appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.2,500/- and

in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

one month. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order

of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the

appellant is before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant having reiterated

the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum submits

that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the

material oral and documentary evidence available on

record and thereby has erred in convicting the appellant

for the alleged offences. He submits that even if the

allegations is presumed to be true, the alleged offence

punishable under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act

does not get attracted since there is no material to show

NC: 2025:KHC-K:517

that appellant had insulted or abused the first informant in

a public view. He accordingly prays to allow the appeal.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

has opposed the prayer made in the appeal. She submits

that if the evidence of PW.1, PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6 is

perused, it is very clear that prosecution has made out a

case for the charge sheeted offences against the appellant.

Evidence of PW.1 and PW.4 is corroborated with the

evidence of PW.5 and PW.6, who are independent

witnesses. The appellant has abused PW.1 in the presence

of PW.5 and PW.6 and therefore, the offence punishable

under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act clearly gets

attracted against the appellant. The Trial Court having

appreciated this aspect of the matter has rightly convicted

the appellant for the charge sheeted offences.

Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the appeal.

7. The prosecution in support of its case has examined

nine charge sheet witnesses as PW.1 to PW.9. In the

present case, PW.1 is the first informant and PW.4 is the

NC: 2025:KHC-K:517

wife of PW.1. PW.2 and PW.3 are the panch witnesses to

the spot mahazar. PW.5 and PW.6 are said to be the

independent witnesses in whose presence, appellant

allegedly abused PW.1 and PW.4 referring to their caste.

PW.7 is the Police Officer, who had initially registered the

FIR and PW.8 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who

had completed the investigation and filed charge sheet.

PW.9 is the photographer. Ex.P1 is the copy of the

complaint and Ex.P1a is the signature of PW.7 in the

complaint. Ex.P2 is the photograph of the spot and Ex.P3

is the spot panchanama. Ex.P3a and Ex.P3b are the

signatures of panch witnesses i.e., PW.2 and PW.3 and

Ex.P3c is the signature of PW.8, who is the Investigating

Officer in the present case. Ex.P4 is the FIR and Ex.P4a is

the signature of PW.7, who had registered the FIR. Ex.P5

is the caste certificate of PW.1 and Ex.P6 is the sketch

map. Ex.P7 is the order from the Superintendent of Police

directing PW.8 to investigate the case.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:517

8. PW.1 and PW.4 have stated that about a year prior

to the date of incident, their cattle were grazing in the

agricultural field belonging to the appellant in which she

had grown maize crop. Therefore, appellant allegedly

abused PW.1 and PW.4 referring to their caste. Thereafter,

appellant allegedly came near their house and once again

abused them referring to their caste and at that time, their

neighbors intervened. For the purpose of attracting the

offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST

(POA) Act, 1989, the insult or abuse by the accused

referring to the caste of the victim who belongs to

scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, should be in any place

within the public view. PW.5 and PW.6 are said to be the

independent witnesses in whose presence appellant had

allegedly abused PW.1 and PW.4 near their house referring

to their caste.

9. PW.5 has stated that he was in his house when the

incident in question had taken place near the house of

PW.1 and PW.4. He overheard the parties fighting and

NC: 2025:KHC-K:517

therefore, he had gone to the spot. He heard appellant

abusing PW.1 referring to his caste. During the course of

cross-examination, this witness has stated that his house

is at a distance from the house of PW.1, but he does not

know the exact distance. He has stated that the distance

between the house of PW.1 and his house can be covered

in 10 minutes by walk.

10. PW.6 has stated that his house is adjacent to the

house of PW.5 and even this witness during the cross-

examination has stated that, it would take about 10 to 15

minutes to reach the house of PW.1 from his house. From

the evidence of PW.5 and PW.6, it is apparent that their

house is not situated very close to the house of PW.1 and

PW.4 so that they could have overheard the appellant and

PW.1 fighting with each other on 26.09.2017. Therefore,

it cannot be said that prosecution has proved its case

beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had insulted

or abused PW.1 and PW.4 referring to their caste in any

place within a public view.

                                                   NC: 2025:KHC-K:517





         d)    Bail      bonds,     if     any,   executed   by   the