The State of Karnataka Vs Lakshmipathi

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶13

&APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP.)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

LAKSHMIPATHI, S/O CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT KASHAPURA VILLAGE, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶18

KUM. SHRAVANI D/O NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT KASHAPURA VILLAGE, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562107.

¶19

&RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. NAGENDRA B., ADV. FOR R1, SMT. RENUKA DEVI, ADV. FOR R2, (V/O DATED. 01.04.2025 APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE.))

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:21686-DB CRL.A No. 1251 of 2024

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 17.03.2023 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA IN SPL.C.C.NO.22/2019 AND THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 326, 354, 504, 506 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and

¶27

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)

¶30

State has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of acquittal dated 17^th March 2023 passed in Special CC No.22 of 2019 by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge at Chikkaballapur (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court"). By the impugned judgment of acquittal, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST (PoA) Act') and acquitted the accused for the offences punishable

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21686-DB CRL.A No. 1251 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

under Sections 326, 354, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act'.

¶34

Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chikkaballapura, Sub-Division laid a charge-sheet against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 354, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of SC/T (PoA) Act. It is alleged by the prosecution that PW1-Kum. Shravani, is a member of Nayaka caste, which is a Scheduled Tribe and accused is a member of Balajiga community, which is neither a Scheduled Caste nor Scheduled Tribe. It is stated in the complaint that the family of PW1 owns 60 sheep and her father used to take the sheep for grazing every day. On 26^th May 2019 at about 10:30 am, when PW1 returned home after giving lunch to her father, she could not find sheep in the sheep-barn and while she was searching sheep, she was informed by PW14-Nagamma that she drove the sheep while they were grazing the chilly plants in the land of accused and the accused being enraged, has driven the sheep towards Jaragutta. When PW1 went there, she found that the accused was driving the

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21686-DB CRL.A No. 1251 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

sheep towards Puluvarapalli. PW1 confessed the mistake with the accused and told that the same will not be repeated and pleaded to give back the sheep. At that time, accused abused PW1 in filthy language by taking name of their caste and attempted to assault her by twisting her hand, due to which the left forehand of PW1 got fractured. It is stated in the complaint that the accused has also threatened her that he will not spare her. At that time, PWs5 & 6 came to the spot and pacified the quarrel. PW1 was taken to Bagepalli Government Hospital for medical treatment. On receipt of medico-legal case, Police Sub-Inspector visited the Government Hospital and recorded the statement of PW1 as per Exhibit P1, registered First Information Report in Crime No.101 of 2009, as per Exhibit P25 against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r), and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act. As the matter was involving the offences under SC/ST (PoA) Act, the Superintendent of Police, Chikkaballapur directed PW13-Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct investigation and accordingly, he took up the matter. He visited the spot of incident, drew spot-panchanama as per Exhibit P5 in the

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21686-DB CRL.A No. 1251 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

presence of PWs6 and 10, and at the instance of eye-witness PW5, seized MO1-Club. He also drew spot panchanama near the chilly plantation of accused in the presence of PWs8 & 12 and recorded the further statement of PW1 and statements of PWs2 to 6, 8, 9 & 14. After completion of investigation, he laid charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 354, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.

¶41

After taking cognizance, the case was registered in Special CC No.22 of 2019. Having heard the accused on framing of charge, the trial Court, framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 326, 354, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.

¶42

In order to prove its case, the prosecution, in all, examined fifteen witnesses as PWs1 to 15 and produced 29 documents as per Exhibits P1 to P29 and marked one material object as MO1. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21686-DB CRL.A No. 1251 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

was recorded. Accused denied all the incriminating materials appearing against him and filed written statement. Accused examined himself as DW1 and marked one document as Exhibit D1.

¶46

After hearing both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, and acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 354, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w) and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the State is before this Court in the present appeal.

¶47

Sri Rajath Subramanyam, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, submits that the impugned Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is illegal, perverse and contrary to the facts of the case and material on record. He submits that the reasons assigned by the trial Court while acquitting, the accused is erroneous and has caused miscarriage of justice. The trial Court failed to

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21686-DB CRL.A No. 1251 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

consider the evidence of PWs1 to 15, as also, documents Exhibits P1 to P29. PWs4 to 6, who are eye- witnesses to the case have supported the case of prosecution. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW7 who is a Medical Officer in Bagepalli Government Hospital, and the evidence of PW15, who is the Medical Officer of District Hospital, Chikkaballapur. Further, the trial Court has ignored the evidence and acquitted the accused, which is not sustainable. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the appeal.

¶51

As against this, Smt. Renuka Devi, appearing on behalf of the second respondent as Amicus curiae, submits that the trial Court has properly appreciated all the evidence and material in accordance with law and has acquitted the accused, and the same does not call for interference in this appeal and hence sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶52

We have examined the material placed before us. Charges were framed against the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 354, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) 3(1)(w) 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act. The trial Court has convicted the

¶53

8 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:21686-DB CRL.A No. 1251 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

accused for the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code

¶57

and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act and sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- for offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. Accused is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- for offence punishable under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, in default, to undergo Simple imprisonment for three months. The trial Court has also passed an order to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- out of fine amount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant-PW1. The accused has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court. It is also submitted that the accused has paid the fine amount.

¶58

State has preferred this appeal to convict the accused for offences punishable under Sections 326, 354, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.

¶59

To prove the offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has produced Exhibits P12 to P14-

¶60

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:21686-DB CRL.A No. 1251 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

medical documents. However, the Medical Officers at National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, who have treated the injured are not examined to prove the content of these documents. It is also observed by the trial Court that PW15Medical Officer, District Hospital, indicated that he has not obtained the X-ray to confirm the said fracture during the visit of PW1 on 21.5.2019 or on 27.05.2019. On the basis of the x-

¶63

ray obtained at private hospital, PW1 was found to have a fracture of the left ulna. But the prosecution has not led the evidence of radiologist or the Medical Officer as to who obtained the X-ray at Manasa Hospital. The trial Court has observed that in the absence of evidence of radiologist or Medical Officer of Manasa Hospital, Bagepalli, the said X-ray Exhibit P9 cannot be relied upon to prove the grievous hurt caused to PW1. Accordingly, it is observed by the trial Court that the medical records do not show any fracture injury on the hand of PW1. Hence, the trial Court has rightly observed that the prosecution has not placed legal evidence to prove the grievous hurt caused to PW1 as defined under Section 320 read with Section 322 of Indian Penal Code.

¶64

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:21686-DB CRL.A No. 1251 of 2024

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

With regard to the offences punishable under Sections 326, 354, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused abused PW1 by referring to her caste and also acted in a way intending to outrage her modesty and caused criminal intimidation by threatening to kill her. It is observed by the trial Court that the evidence of PW1 does not show that the accused used criminal force intending to outrage the modesty and touched the body of PW1 with sexual intent. The evidence of PW1 does not disclose intent of the accused to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 354 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The trial Court has clearly observed that there is no cogent, consistent, corroborative, clinching evidence to prove the aforesaid offences.

¶67

On careful examination of materials placed before us, we do not find any error/illegality/infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal in respect of offences punishable under Sections under 326, 354, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code and

¶68