Karnataka High Court

Kumaranna @ Kumaraswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2025

                                              -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC:21059
                                                     CRL.A No. 1068 of 2013


                   HC-KAR



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                            BEFORE
                              THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1068 OF 2013 (C)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    KUMARANNA @ KUMARASWAMY
                         S/O MALYAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
                         R/AT JAJUR VILALGE
                         KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK
                         HASSAN DISTRICT

                   2.    SANJU
                         S/O KUMARANNA @ KUMARASWAMY
                         AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
                         R/AT JAJUR VILALGE
                         KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK
                         HASSAN DISTRICT

                   3.    RANGASWAMY
Digitally signed
by NANDINI B             S/O RANGAPPA
G                        AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
Location: High
Court of                 R/AT JAJUR VILALGE
Karnataka                KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK
                         HASSAN DISTRICT

                   4.    GANGADHARA
                         S/O CHANDRAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
                         R/AT JAJUR VILALGE
                         KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK
                         HASSAN DISTRICT

                   5.    MANI
                         S/O SHEKARAPPA
                             -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:21059
                                   CRL.A No. 1068 of 2013


HC-KAR



     AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
     R/AT JAJUR VILALGE
     KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK
     HASSAN DISTRICT

6.   MANJUNATHA
     S/O NINGAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
     R/AT JAJUR VILALGE
     KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK
     HASSAN DISTRICT

7.   INDRAMMA
     W/O RAJANNA
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
     R/AT JAJUR VILALGE
     KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK
     HASSAN DISTRICT
                                            ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. KARIAPPA N.A, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ARASIKERE RURAL POLICE
HASSAN DISTRICT
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
                                           ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)

     THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTIONS AND
SENTENCE DATED 11.10.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL. S.J. AND
SPL. JUDGE, HASSAN IN SPL. CASE NO.112/2011 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 143,323 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(x) OF SC AND
ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989.
                                -3-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC:21059
                                         CRL.A No. 1068 of 2013


HC-KAR



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


CORAM:    HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA


                       ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellants being accused Nos.1 to 7 in Special Case

No.112 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions

Judge at Hassan, are impugning the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 11.10.2013, convicting them for the

offences punishable under Sections 143 and 323 read with

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and

under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

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

and sentencing them to pay fine of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.1,000/-

each respectively for the offences punishable under Sections

143 and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC and further, accused

No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period

of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence

punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, with default

sentences.

NC: 2025:KHC:21059

HC-KAR

2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the

prosecution is that, on 18.10.2011 at about 11.00 p.m. Sri

Veerabadreshwara Swamy Temple utsava was being held.

When PW.7 who belonged to scheduled caste community went

to offer prayer by singing a song, the accused persons who

belonged to upper caste, formed unlawful assembly and

humiliated PW.7 by referring to his caste and insisted not to

sing any song. When PWs.2 and 3 went to question the same,

accused persons assaulted them and caused hurt. They have

also abused them by referring to their caste and humiliated

them in front of the public. Thereby, they have committed the

offences as stated above. The police after investigation filed the

charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 7 for the above said

offences.

3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and

summoned the accused. The accused denied the charges

leveled against them and claimed to be tried. Prosecution

examined PWs.1 to 17, got marked Exs.P1 to 12 and identified

MOs.1 to 5 in support of its contention. The accused denied all

the incriminating materials available on record in their

statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, but have not

NC: 2025:KHC:21059

HC-KAR

stepped into the witness box nor examined any witnesses.

However, they got marked for Exs.D1 and D2 during the cross

examination of the prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court after

taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to

the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in proving

the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the

offences punishable under Sections 143 and 323 read with

Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act.

Accordingly, it has passed the impugned judgment of conviction

and order of sentence as stated above. Being aggrieved by the

same, the accused are before this Court.

4. Heard Sri. Kariappa N.A., learned counsel for the

appellants and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, Additional SPP for the

respondent. Peruse the materials, including the Trial Court

records.

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned

counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my

consideration is:

NC: 2025:KHC:21059

HC-KAR

"Whether the appellants have made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and to acquit them for the charges leveled against them?"

My answer to the above point is in the 'affirmative' for the

following:

REASONS

6. It is the contention of the prosecution that the

accused who belonged to the upper caste, abused PWs.2 and 3

who belongs to Madiga Community - Scheduled Caste, in filthy

language by referring to their caste, humiliated, assaulted,

kicked them, and torn their clothes. Thereby, they have

committed the offences as stated above on 18.10.2011 at

about 11.00 p.m.

7. To prove this contention, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 and 6, who are the eye witnesses to the incident. They

have not supported the case of the prosecution. PWs.2 and 3

are said to be the injured eye witnesses. PW.2 filed the first

information as per Ex.P2 on 19.10.2011 by giving statement to

the police at about 1.45 a.m. in the hospital. Exs.P8 and 9 are

NC: 2025:KHC:21059

HC-KAR

the wound certificates pertaining to PWs.2 and 3, according to

which, the injured eye witnesses have complained of pain over

their shoulders, even though no obvious injuries were seen.

PWs.4, 5 and 7 are the eye witnesses to the incident and they

have fully supported the case of the prosecution. PW.8 is the

witness to the spot mahazar - Ex.P4. PW9 is the Tahsildar who

issued Caste Certificate pertaining to the injured as well as the

accused.

8. PWs.2 and 3 are said to be the injured eye

witnesses. PW.10 is the Doctor who examined them has

deposed before the Court that he has not noticed any injuries

on the person of PWs.2 and 3. He has issued the Wound

Certificate only on the basis of version of PWs.2 and 3, that

they are experiencing pain. Admittedly, he has not clinically

examined the witnesses to confirm that they are experiencing

pain as a result of the incident. It is pertinent to note that

PW.7 is cited as an eye witness to the incident. He goes to the

extent of saying that, PWs.2 and 3 have sustained bleeding

injuries in the incident. It is an inconsistent evidence on the

part of the witness.

NC: 2025:KHC:21059

HC-KAR

9. PW.2, during cross examination, specifically states

that since about 35 years, similar galatas have been going on

during Jathra of the temple. As per the Investigating Officer,

about 300 persons have gathered in the festival. In such a big

gathering, if there was push and pull, it cannot be said that the

accused have committed the offence as stated by the

prosecution.

10. PW.2 states that it was accused No.1 who abused

him and PW.3 by referring to their caste. PW.9 is the

Tahasildar, who has issued the Caste Certificate. He states that

accused No.1 belongs to the Bestha community, which is a

Scheduled Tribe. Under such circumstances, no offence would

be made out against him under the special enactment.

11. Even though prosecution relies on the seizure

mahazar - Ex.P3, PW.12 - the mahazar witness has not

supported the case of the prosecution regarding seizure of MO

Nos.1 to 3. PW.15, who is the mahazar witness to Ex.P5 has

also not supported the case of the prosecution. PWs.1 and 6,

who are examined as eye witnesses to the incident have not

supported the case of the prosecution.

NC: 2025:KHC:21059

HC-KAR

12. If the contention of the prosecution regarding

commission of the offence by the accused with the motive to

cause hurt is considered in light of the oral and documentary

evidences that are placed before the Court, the version of the

prosecution is surrounded by reasonable doubt regarding the

motive and commission of the offence. When two views are

possible, the view that is beneficial to the accused will have to

be taken into consideration. When there are hundreds of

persons gathered in the festival and there was push and pull, it

cannot be attributed to the accused. The benefit of doubt is to

be extended to the accused.

13. I have gone through the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

The Trial Court based its judgment only on the versions of

PWs.2 and 3 to form an opinion that the accused have

assaulted and caused hurt. The Court has ignored the fact that

no hurt or injury is caused to them, even as per medical

evidence.

14. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:21059

HC-KAR

by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. Hence, I answer the

above point in the 'affirmative' and proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

(ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.10.2013 passed in Special Case No.112/2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Hassan, is set aside.

(iii) Consequently, the accused are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.