Sri. Shivashankara @ Shivu @ Tharakari Shiva Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. SHIVASHANKARA @ SHIVU @ THARAKARI SHIVU S/O. LATE MAHADEVASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT MEGALAUPPARA BEEDI, 8TH WARD, CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGARA.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. KASHINATH J D., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶15

SRI. ANANDAKUMARA @ ANANDA S/O. RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDENT OF 19TH WARD, 1ST CROSS, SANTEMARAHALLI ROAD, SANTEMARAHALLI ROAD, NAYAKARA BEEDI, CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGAR- 571313

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY.R., HCGP FOR R1; SMT. MANJULA.D, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:42976 CRL.A No. 1975 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14A(2) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2025 PASSED IN CR.NO.150/2025 PASSED BY THE PRL.DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHAMARAJANAGAR., AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the

¶26

order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara in Crime No.150/2025.

¶27

The brief facts leading to this appeal is that:

¶28

On the basis of the complaint filed by one Ananda Kumara, the Chamarajanagara Town Police have registered the case in Crime No.150/2025 against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 109, 352, 351(2) of the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 and under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant has filed an application under Section 483 of Bharathiya

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42976 CRL.A No. 1975 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Nyaya Sanhita and the same came to be rejected. Hence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶32

The learned counsel for the appellant would

¶33

submit that, the accused was arrested on 20.08.2025, and from the date of his arrest till this date, the accused is in judicial custody, and the accused is not required for further investigation. The injured has already discharged form the hospital and the wound certificate reveals that the accused has sustained only simple injures. Hence, he sought to allow this appeal.

¶34

As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and also learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that there are sufficient material to attract the alleged commission of offences and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶35

I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and examined the material placed on record.

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:42976 CRL.A No. 1975 of 2025

¶37

4 -

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

In the compliant it is stated that, on 19.08.2025, while 1^st informant along with his father selling the egg rice, the accused as a customer came to him at about 8.30 pm and asked 1st informant's father for a plate of egg rice and chicken fried rice for parcel, again accused asked for the parcel to 1st informant and also, he was showed urgency for the parcel. By that time, the 1^st informant replied to the accused that, there are 3-4 people waiting for the service who came before him, and hence he asked the accused to wait for some time. By that time some oral exchanges are made between the 1st informant's father and accused, thereafter accused abused the 1^st informant's father using filthy language. It is alleged that, 1^st informant came and asked the accused to speak properly then the accused assaulted the 1^st informant saying that, "Nayaka janangada Bolimagane kobbadutiya".

¶40

Thereafter, the 1^st informant scolded the

¶41

accused and asked him to go away from the shop, despite

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42976 CRL.A No. 1975 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

accused abused the 1^st informant using filthy language and he threatened him that he will do something to 1^st informant. It is also alleged that, after the said incident, the 1st informant continued to work in the street and at about 10.00 the accused came near shop and by threatening the 1^st informant came behind him and beat to the right side of the neck by using cutter. Thereafter when the 1^st informant tried to defend himself by help of his hands, then again accused beaten him, some minor injuries happened to his finger. Thereafter, 1st informant along with his father and other street vendors namely Prasanna and Mani came to the rescue and tried to catch the accused. But, the accused ran away from the incident place, due to blood injury in the neck and fingers of the 1st informant, father taken him to the nearest Government hospital and given treatment. Thereafter, the 1st informant was shifted to another Government hospital for further treatment. It is also alleged that, the accused having intention to take away the life of the 1^st informant

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42976 CRL.A No. 1975 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

abused him by taking his caste name and assaulted the 1^st informant. By making above stated allegations the respondent No-2 has lodged the complaint on 20-08-2025 before the respondent police.

¶48

It is not in dispute that wound certificate issued

¶49

by the Medical Officer, District Hospital, Chamarajanagara indicates that injured has sustained following injuries:

¶50

Lacerated wound, clean cut of 10 cm x 10 cm subcutaneous depth at Left side of neck oblique bleeding present.

¶51

Lacerated wound, clean cut of 2 cm x 2 cm x

¶52

0.25 cm present on the Left Index finger mid 1/3 dorsal aspect bleeding present.

¶53

Lacerated wound, clean cut of 2 cm x 2 cm x

¶54

0.25 cm present on the Left middle finger mid 1/3 dorsal aspect oblique, bleeding present.

¶55

The Doctor has stated that injured has admitted

¶56

to the hospital on 19.08.2025 and was discharged on

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:42976 CRL.A No. 1975 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

22.08.2025 and has opined that all the above injuries are simple in nature.

¶61

The accused is not required for further investigation and the Investigating Officer has not submitted final report within 60 days from the date of the registration of the case, as required under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 7 of SC/ST(POA) Rules, 1995. The Investigating Officer has not explained anything as to compliance of the mandatory provisions of SC/ST(POA) Rules, 1995.

¶62