Sidram Atmaram Kamble Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 12.09.2018 PASSED BY THE III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST ACT, BELAGAVI IN SPECIAL CASE NO.16/2012 AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 6 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 147, 323, 504, 506, 427 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(X) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶29

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9670 CRL.A No. 100040 of 2019

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶35

The de facto – complainant has filed this appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., assailing the judgment and order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, & Special Court for SC / ST Act, Belagavi in Special Case No.16/2012 acquitting the respondent Nos.2 to 6 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶37

Respondent Nos.2 to 6 were tried before the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, & Special Court for SC / ST Act, Belagavi in Special Case No.16/2012 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial Judge vide the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.09.2018, had acquitted respondent Nos.2 to 6 of all the

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9670 CRL.A No. 100040 of 2019

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

charge sheeted offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the de facto complainant is before this Court in this appeal.

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellant having reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, has prayed to allow appeal.

¶43

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 6 has opposed the prayer made in the appeal.

¶44

Perusal of the material on record will go to show that the prosecution in order to prove its charges against the accused had examined eight charge sheet witnesses in the present case as PW1 to PW8 and also had got marked 12 documents as exhibits P1 to P12. On behalf of the accused, no defence evidence was led. PW1 in the present case is the Police Constable and PW2 is the Panchayat Development Officer. PW3 and PW5 to PW8 are all members of the same family, who are the alleged victims in the present case. PW4 is the mahazar witness, who is the sole independent witness examined in the present case. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 are not material in the present case. PW4, who is the panch to the spot mahazar, has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9670 CRL.A No. 100040 of 2019

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

PW3 and PW5 to PW8 have alleged that on the alleged date of incident, the accused persons had referred to their caste and had abused them and also had assaulted PW3 and PW5. However, the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses in whose presence, the accused persons allegedly had abused PW3 and PW5 to PW8, referring to their caste. Though PW3 and PW5 are said to be the injured victims in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the said injuries by producing the wound certificate of the injured. Even the doctor who had medically examined the victims has not been examined in the present case. The Investigation Officer is also not examined in the present case by the prosecution. The trial in the case had commenced in the year 2012 and PW1 was examined on 19.01.2012. For a period of more than 6 months, the prosecution had failed to keep the material witnesses present before the Court for the purpose of examination. It is under these circumstances, the Trial Court has rejected the prayer made by the Public Prosecutor to secure the presence of material charge sheeted witnesses. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the same. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge sheeted offences by producing necessary

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9670 CRL.A No. 100040 of 2019

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

documentary and oral evidence against the accused and therefore, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused of the charge sheet offences. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned

¶51

judgment and order of the acquittal. It is trite that unless the judgment and order of the acquittal is found to be perverse and illegal, in normal circumstances, this Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Under the circumstances, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

Criminal appeal is dismissed.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶56

RSH / CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 42

Sidram Atmaram Kamble v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidram Atmaram Kamble v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Abhijit S/O Late Ajit Harapanahalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Abdulkarim Hassan Pailwan Vs the State of Karnataka

Venkatagiri Prahlad Kulkarni Vs State of Karnataka

Akash S/O Chandrahas Naik Vs State of Karnataka

Vajendrachar Alias Vajendra Rao Kulkarni Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Ravindranath K Vs Dr. Vijaykumar v Hindasagari