[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sharada K. Naik vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 9 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221
CRL.A No. 200082 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200082 OF 2022
(372(Cr.PC)/413(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHARADA K. NAIK
W/O KAMANTH S. N.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O S.N. CAMP, BASAPUR EJ
RAICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed THROUGH POLICE DY.SP. SINDHANUR,
by SHIVALEELA POLICE SUB-DIVISION
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI DIST: RAICHUR
Location: HIGH REPT. BY ADDL. SPP
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585102
2. RASHID SAB @ SHAFI AHMAD
S/O NASEERUDDIN
AGE: 50 YEARS
OCC: SHEEP BUSINESS
3. BASHU @ BASHASAB
S/O NASEERUDDIN
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221
CRL.A No. 200082 of 2022
HC-KAR
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: SHEEP BUSINESS
BOTH ARE R/O NEAR OLD GRAM
PANCHAYAT, HUTTI, TQ: LINGASUGUR
DIST: RAICHUR-584101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. S. R. KADLOOR ADV., FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.372 OF CR.P.C
U/SEC. 413 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE LEARNED
SPECIAL COURT FOR THE CASES UNDER THE SC/ST (PoA) ACT
AND 1ST ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR IN SPL. CASE
(ATROCITY) NO. 232/2017 IN ACQUITTING RESPONDENT NO.2
AND 3 AND TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECS. 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC
AND U/SEC. 3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST (PoA) ACT, 1989 BY
IMPOSING APPROPRIATE SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT AND
COMPENSATION.
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 appellant/complainant-victim has preferred this
appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.11.2021
passed in Special Case (Atrocity) No.232/2017 by the I-
Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge/Special Court, Raichur (for
short, 'the Trial Court').
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221
HC-KAR
2. The State has not preferred any appeal against
the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
4. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal
are that, the Dy.S.P. Sindhanur police sub-division has
submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons
alleging the offences punishable under Sections 504 and
506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) unamended Act, 1989 [(for
short, 'the SC/ST (PoA) Act']. It is alleged by the
prosecution that, the complaint and accused persons are
known to each other. The complainant used to graze
sheep. On 28.08.2018 complainant sold 120 sheep to
accused persons at a price of Rs.5,050/- each in the
presence of CWs.5 and 6, totally amounting to
Rs.6,06,000/- and received Rs.50,000/-. On 02.03.2017 at
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221
HC-KAR
12:30 noon, in front of house of PW.1-Sharada K. Nayak
situated at S.N.Camp, Turvihal, Tq. Sindhanur, both the
accused with common intention to insult PW.1 and in
prosecution of such intention, intentionally insulted her by
abusing in filthy languages as "J ±ÁgÀzÁ¨Á¬Ä £ÀªÀÄä UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ
§AzÀÄ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀªÁV ºÀt PÉüÀĪÀµÀÄÖ ¸ÉÆPÀÄÌ §A¢zÉAiÀiÁ CqÀ« eÁw
®A¨Át eÁw ¤£ÀUÉ JµÀÄÖ ¸ÉÆPÀÄÌ ¸ÀƼÉà ªÀÄUÀ¼ÃÉ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß PÀÆzÀ®Ä »rzÀÄ
§rAiÀÄÄvÉÛêÉ" thereby provoked her intending that such
provocation would cause her to breach public peace and
both accused also committed criminal intimidation by
threatening her stating that "E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ¸À® ºÀt K£ÁzÀgÀÆ PÉüÀ®Ä
§AzÀgÉ ¤ªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§ ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ ªÀÄÄV¹©qÀÄvÉÛêÉ" with an intent to cause
alarm to her life. Hence, the complainant has filed this
complaint against the accused persons for the above
offences.
5. After filing the charge-sheet, case was
registered in Special Case (Atrocity) No.232/2017.
Accused appeared before the Trial Court. The Trial Court
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221
HC-KAR
has framed the charges for the alleged offences. The same
were read over and explained to the accused. Having
understood the same, accused have pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution in all, has examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to
11; and got marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. On
closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused have
denied the charges leveled against them. However, they
did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their
behalf.
7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, the
Trial Court has acquitted the accused persons for the
offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST
(PoA) Amendment Act, 2015. Being aggrieved by the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221
HC-KAR
judgment of acquittal, the appellant-complainant-victim
has preferred this appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant-
complainant-victim would submit that the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned
Sessions Judge/Special Judge is contrary to law and facts
of the case and evidence on record. PW.1-victim has
deposed in her evidence that, accused Nos.1 and 2 abused
her in filthy language by taking her caste name. Under
these circumstances, the Trial Court ought to have taken
presumption under Section 8 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
9. PWs.2 and 3 have also deposed as to the
alleged incident. Accordingly, the evidence of PW.1
corroborated to the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 8
(eyewitness). The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the
evidence on record in proper perspective. The accused
have not adduced any defence evidence. Further, the Trial
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221
HC-KAR
Court has discarded the evidence and acquitted the
accused persons. Hence, sought for allowing the appeal.
10. As against this, Sri.S.R.Kadloor, learned counsel
for respondent Nos.2 and 3/accused would submit that the
Trial Court has properly appreciated the materials on
record in accordance with law and facts and absolutely
that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned
judgment of acquittal. To substantiate his arguments, he
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh
vs. State of Maharashtra [2022 AIAR (Cri) 937] and
Ravi Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and
Anr. [(2022) 8 SCC 536].
11. Learned High Court Government Pleader has
adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the
complainant.
12. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the
following points would arise for consideration:
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221
HC-KAR
1) Whether the Trial Court is justified in
passing the judgment of acquittal?
2) What order?
13. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order:
Point No.1:
14. Before appreciation of evidence and record, it is
necessary to mention as to the judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the Case of Constable 907 Surendra
Singh and Another v. State of Uttarakhand reported in
(2025)5 SCC 433; Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar
and Others v. State of Karnataka reported in (2024)8
SCC 149; Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka reported
in (2007)4 SCC 415; and H.D. Sundara v. State of
Karnataka reported in (2023)9 SCC 581. In the case of
H. D. SUNDARA (supra), the Apex Court has summarized
the principles governing exercise of appellate jurisdiction
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221
HC-KAR
while dealing with an appeal against judgment of acquittal
under section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure as under:
"8. ...8.1. The acquittal of the accused further
strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal
against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and
documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal
against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is
required to consider whether the view taken by the trial
court is a possible view which could have been taken on
the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate
court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground
that another view was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order
of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only
conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the
evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other
conclusion was possible."
15. In the case of BABU SAHEBGOUDA
RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS (supra) it is observed
that it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221
HC-KAR
interference by an appellate Court for reversing the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court in favour
of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners
of the following principles. The same are:
"1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent
perversity;
2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission
to consider material evidence on record; and
3. That no two reasonable views are possible and
only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is
possible from the evidence available on record."
16. The alleged incident took place on 02.03.2017
at 12:30 noon, but the complaint came to be filed on
12.03.2017 at 18:00 hours. On the basis of this complaint,
Sub-Inspector of Turvihal Police Station registered the
case in Crime No.38/2017 against the accused persons for
the commission of offences punishable under Sections
504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x)
of the SC/ST (PoA) Act and submitted FIR to the Court at
10:45 a.m. In FIR column 3(c) the Investigating Officer
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221
HC-KAR
has not assigned any reasons for delay in filing the
complaint.
17. PW.1 has not whispered anything in her chief-
examination as to delay in filing the complaint. PW.9 has
also not whispered anything as to inordinate delay of more
than 10 days in filing the complaint. PW.2-Kamanth the
husband of PW.1 is not eyewitness to the incident, but
only at the instance of PW.1, he has written the complaint
as per Ex.P1. PW.1 has deposed as to the transactions
regarding sheep and deposed as to the abusive words
used by the accused. According to the complainant, PW.5-
Amarappa is one of the eyewitness to the incident, but he
has not supported to the case of the prosecution.
18. PW.8-Vithal, has deposed in his evidence that,
at about four years back one day at 12:30 p.m. accused
No.2 and another were quarrelling with Sharadamma.
Accused No.1 abused to Sharadamma as "CqÀ« ®A¨ÁtÂ, UÀ§Äâ
eÁw ¸ÀƼÉ". The quarrel took place regarding selling of
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221
HC-KAR
sheep, at that time, he intervened and pacified the
quarrel.
19. The Investigating Officer has recorded the
statement of Vitthal-PW.8 on 16.03.2017 after lapse of
four days from the date of filing of complaint. Though the
Investigating Officer has recorded the evidence, but
submitted statement of this witness to the Court on
23.05.2017 at the time of filing the charge-sheet. The
delay in recording the statement of eyewitness-Vithal has
not been explained by the Investigating Officer. Therefore,
it is difficult to come to the conclusion that PW.8 was
present at the time of incident. Accordingly, the evidence
of PW.1 has not substantiated by any other independent
witness.
20. The Trial Court at paragraph No.26 of its
judgment has observed as under:
"26. In the instant case, there is no nexus between
the evidence of PW-1 and 2 and the case of
prosecution and same are in a triangular way leading
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221
HC-KAR
to contradiction to each other. From the tenor of
evidence of PW-1 and 2, it is crystal clear that there
is a dispute with regard to repayment of money
between the accused persons and the PW-1 on
purchase of lambs, as such, in order to take revenge
and harass the accused persons by taking undue
advantage of their caste, they have foisted this false
case against the accused persons. There is no
document to show that there is an oral agreement or
promise by the accused persons to pay the amount
after Bakar-Eid after having taken 120 lambs from
PW-1. PW-2 has stated that he was on duty on that
day and he has not lodged any complaint. Whereas
PW-1 has stated that there was verbal exchange with
regard to repayment of money and the accused
persons have abused and insulted her. There is
serious discrepancy with regard to alleged abusive
words uttered by the accused persons. There is no
corroboration from the evidence of PW-1, 2 and the
prosecution story with regard to abusive words
alleged to have been uttered by the accused
persons. Neither the PW-1 nor the PW-2 have
deposed anything as to why there was delay of more
than 10 days in reporting the alleged incident. There
is no satisfactory explanation either from PW-1 or
from PW-2. This creates serious doubt on the
veracity of the evidence of PW-1 and 2, who have
deposed contradictory to each other. In the result,
the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
the accused persons are acceptable. Unless, the
prosecution is able to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt, the accused cannot be convicted.
There is serious animosity between the PW-1 with
that of the accused persons with regard to
repayment of money on account of purchase of
lambs. This being the scenario, except the interested
evidence of PW-1 and 2, there is no other
independent eye witness to corroborate their version.
As discussed supra, in the absence of any
corroboration from the independent eye witness and
the fact that version of prosecution is not supported
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221
HC-KAR
by the PW-1, 2 and other witnesses, accused persons
cannot be held guilty. In the circumstances, foisting
of false case by complainant against accused persons
cannot be ruled out considering the delay in
reporting the alleged incident and tenor of evidence
of PW-1 and 2. There are number of inconsistencies,
contradictions, omissions and improvements in the
evidence of prosecution witnesses and lack of
corroboration from the independent eye witness.
Thus, prosecution failed to bring home the alleged
guilt of the accused persons to the hilt as required
under law without any ambiguity. Therefore, this
court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed
to prove the guilt of the accused persons to the hilt
beyond all reasonable doubt for any of ingredients of
the above offences and always the benefit of doubt is
to be given to the accused persons and accordingly it
has been given. Hence, points No.1 to 3 are
answered in the negative."
21. On re-examination, re-consideration and
re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record and
keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, and also the decision relied upon by the
learned counsel for the respondents, I do not find any
legal or factual error in the judgment of acquittal passed
by the Trial Court. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the
affirmative.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2221
HC-KAR
Point No.2:
22. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
SDU/RSP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 21
CT-BH
