This is a criminal appeal against an acquittal. The High Court examined whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse or illegal. Upholding the lower court, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
The criminal appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Registry to send back the Trial Court Records.
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:46147 CRL.A No. 108 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 108 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
THE STATE BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, MANGALURU, MANIPAL POLICE STATION, REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA HCGP)
AND:
Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DEEKAYYA POOJARY S/O LATE KORAGAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT KUNDAYAGOLI HOUSE, SHAMBOOR VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK-574 211.
(RESPONDENT SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 05.07.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS (SPECIAL) JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE IN SPL.C.NO.5/2015 ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 323,506 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(x) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
NC: 2024:KHC:46147 CRL.A No. 108 of 2019
ORAL JUDGMENT
The State represented by Assistant Commissioner of Police, South Sub-Division, Mangaluru, Manipal Police Station, has preferred this appeal impugning the judgment dated 5.7.2018 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions (Special) Judge, D.K.Mangaluru (for short the ‘Trial Court’), in Spl.C.No.5/2015 acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST Act’).
Health Centre, where he has taken treatment as an outpatient. It is also stated that the accused had abused him by referring to his caste and thereby committed the offences as stated above.
NC: 2024:KHC:46147 CRL.A No. 108 of 2019
passed. The State has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the same.
appellant. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.
"Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality and calls for interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the
following:
REASONS
the accused picked up quarrel with PW.1, abused him in filthy language by referring to his caste and also assaulted him, as a result of which, he sustained injuries. As per the wound certificate – Ex.P11, the injured had sustained three injuries. Injury Nos.1 and 3 are the tenderness with pain and injury No.2 is an abrasion inside the upper limb. The doctor who examined the injured deposed before the Court as PW.9. During cross-examination, he has stated that injury No.2 mentioned in the injury certificate could be caused if a person falls down on the rough surface. He states that if the injuries
were fresh, it would be mentioned so in the wound certificate, but there is no such mentioning in the wound certificate.
oral and documentary evidence placed before it, came to the
NC: 2024:KHC:46147 CRL.A No. 108 of 2019
conclusion that the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 cannot be believed. I do not find any reason to reverse the finding recorded by the Trial Court as it cannot be said that it is either illegal or perverse. The opinion expressed
by the Trial Court is based on the materials on record that are placed before it. Under such circumstances, the appellant has
not made out any ground to interfere with the same.
negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Registry to send back the Trial Court Records.
Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE
ND List No.: 2 Sl No.: 38
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality and calls for interference?
Whether the evidence of prosecution witnesses establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt given inconsistencies and perversity?
4 provisions across 3 enactments
The State
Deekayya Poojary
M G Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
