The Special Public Prosecutor appealed against a judgment of acquittal for alleged offences under IPC 323, 504 and SC/ST Act 1989. The High Court held the prosecution evidence inconsistent and lacking in material to prove assault or intentional insult, dismissing the appeal.
Appeal dismissed; copy of judgment sent to trial Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7648 CRL.A No. 100180 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100180 OF 2018 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, HONNAVAR POLICE STATION, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
(BY SRI MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, AGA)
AND:
BADRUDDIN MOHAMMAD SAB, AGE: 20 YEARS, R/O: NADUCHITTE, KARKI, HONNAVAR.
Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR S.BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) &(3) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO A) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 13.11.2017 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR IN SPL.CASE.NO.31/2011; B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 13.11.2017 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR IN SPL.CASE.NO.31/2011; C) CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 504 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(X)(XI) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7648 CRL.A No. 100180 of 2018
JUDGMENT
State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Uttara Kannda, Karwar (for short ‘trial Court’) in Special Case No. 31/2011 dated 13.11.2017.
the trial Court.
It is alleged by the prosecution that the complainant and CW4 are belonging to Mukri community which is classified under SC & ST category. Accused is a Muslim. That on 31.08.2011 at about 9.00 p.m. when the complainant was near Masjid cross in between Karki and Naduchitte village, accused came there and abused CW1 by saying “�� � ಯ� � �ಂ�ಯ � � ಆ���ಲ � �ೕ �ೕ�ಮಗ�” and assaulted him with hands over his body and hands and caused simple injuries. When CW4 came for rescue the accused also abused her in filthy language and insulted her. Thus the accused has committed the offences punishable under Section 323 and 504 of IPC and Section 3(1)((X)(XI) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
cognizance and a case was registered in Spl.Case No.31/2011. In response to the summons, accused appeared before the trial Court and enlarged on bail. On hearing, charges framed for the aforesaid offences, the same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
acquittal passed by the trial Court is contrary to law and facts. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in accordance with law & facts and on these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal.
1) Whether the prosecution has made out
grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal?
2) What order?
Point No. 1 : In the negative
Point No. 2 : As per final order
the materials placed before the Court. Ex.P.11-caste certificate
is issued by the Tahasildar, Honnavar, which reveals that Ravi son of Timma Mukri, i.e., the complainant-PW1 and Smt.Jattu wife of Timma Mukri, mother of the complainant-PW3 belongs to schedule caste. The same is not in dispute. Accused belongs to Muslim community, which is also not in dispute.
her and she has received injury on her left hand finger. The incident took place on 31.08.2011 at 9.00 a.m. The complaint came to be filed on 01.09.2011 at 00.230 hours. FIR was received by the Magistrate on 01.09.2011 at 12.25 p.m. The place of occurrence is at the distance of 5 kms as shown in the FIR-Ex.P.10. The delay in filing the complaint has not been explained by the prosecution. The wound certificate-Ex.P.13 reveals that the injured-PW1 has taken treatment in the Taluka Hospital, Honnavar on 31.08.2011 at 11.00 p.m. He has taken treatment with the history of assault on 31.08.2011 at 9.00 p.m. The injury shown in Ex.P.13 is ‘abrasion over the left
thumb’. The Doctor has opined that injuries are simple in
nature. The Medical Officer who has examined the injured was examined before the Court as PW9.
the history of assault, the concerned Medical Officer has not registered it in Medico Legal Case Register (MLC Register). PW9 has not explained anything as to non registration of the same. The name of the accused is not shown in the wound certificate-Ex.P.13. However, PW9 has also not whispered anything against the accused. If really the accused assaulted PW1 with his hands, as alleged by the prosecution, he would have disclosed name of the accused before the Medical Officer, but he has not done so. The trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Even on re-appreciation of evidence on record pertaining to the offence u/S 323 IPC, I do not find any evidence to constitute the offence u/S 323 IPC.
the offence under Sec. 3(1)(X)(XI) of SC & ST Act is not made out.
concerned, the prosecution has to bring home the following ingredients:
“The essential ingredients of the offence under sec.504 are as follows:
accused abused him as “�� ಮಗ�”. PW3 has deposed that accused has abused her as “�� � �ಂ� ��”. Except the above evidence, the prosecution has not placed sufficient materials to prove the alleged commission of offence u/S 504 IPC.
discussions, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the
trial Court along with original records, forthwith.
Sd/JUDGE
BVV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution has made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal?
Whether the evidence constitutes offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(X)(XI) of SC/ST Act?
5 provisions across 3 enactments
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BADRUDDIN MOHAMMAD SAB
G BASAVARAJA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
