Dismissed¶¶57

Sri Kumara @ Mohan Kumara v. State by Chikkamagalur Rural Police

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2025CRL.A/779/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court; Crl.A. No. 779/2013; appeal under S.374(2) CrPC dismissed; conviction and sentence of 08.07.2013 (Spl. Case 79/2009, Chikmagalur) upheld; offences under Sections 323, 504, 354 IPC (hurt, intentional insult, outraging modesty) and Section 3(i)(xi) SC/ST Act; scheduled-caste widow victim; bite marks corroborated by wound certificate Ex.P7 and doctor PW9; delay in FIR explained; quantum of sentence (6 months SC/ST Act, 2 months each IPC) held reasonable; single bench of Hon'ble Mrs Justice M G Uma; decided 02.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

The point for consideration — whether the appellant made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence — was answered in the negative. ¶¶37

Sri Kumara @ Mohan Kumara Vs State by Chikkamagalur Rural Police — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant-accused has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?

¶¶36

Court's answer

The point for consideration — whether the appellant made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence — was answered in the negative.

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

The prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; the accused was liable to conviction and the Court declined to interfere with the conviction.

¶¶50

Key takeaways

The victim PW1 supported the prosecution case; although subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing was elicited to disbelieve her version and there were no material contradictions in her evidence.ratio¶¶43
The wound certificate Ex.P7 issued by PW9 (who examined the victim on 19.08.2009 and found bite marks on both cheeks with pain and tenderness over neck) and PW9's evidence fully corroborated the evidence of PW1 and supported the prosecution case.ratio¶¶44
The victim's explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint until 19.08.2009 (no public transport from her village to reach the police station and hospital) appeared very reasonable and was not seriously disputed by the accused.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), Crl.A. No. 779 of 2013 (C), decided 02.06.2025 by Hon'ble Mrs Justice M G Uma (oral judgment, single judge). Criminal appeal under S.374(2) Cr.P.C. by Kumara @ Mohan Kumara challenging his conviction and sentence dated 08.07.2013 passed by the I Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Chikmagalur in Special Case No.79/2009 for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 354 IPC and Section 3(i)(xi) of the SC/ST Act — on the prosecution allegation that on 18.08.2009 at 7.30 p.m. near the tank bund bridge he pulled the saree of PW1, a widow belonging to a scheduled caste, bit both her cheeks, squeezed her breast and criminally intimidated her, thereby outraging her modesty; sentenced to six months simple imprisonment under the SC/ST Act and two months each under the IPC sections, concurrently. The Court answered the framed point in the negative: PW1 supported the prosecution case throughout lengthy cross-examination with no material contradictions; her delay in complaining on 19.08.2009 (lack of transport) was held reasonably explained and not seriously disputed; the wound certificate Ex.P7 issued by doctor PW9 fully corroborated her account; hence the prosecution had proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the quantum of sentence was likewise held reasonable. Appeal dismissed; Registry directed to send back the Trial Court records with a copy of the judgment. Note: the cause title cites the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 while the operative paragraph cites the 'Act, 2015'; both reproduced as printed. No precedents were cited or relied upon.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:18493 CRL.A No. 779 of 2013

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 779 OF 2013 (C)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. KUMARA @ MOHAN KUMARA, S/O PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT HEJJAGENAHALLY VILLAGE, AMBALE HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 101

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. H.J. ANANDA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE BY CHIKKAMAGALUR RURAL POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADD.SPP.)

¶17

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶18

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 08.07.2013 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SESSIONS AND SPL. JUDGE, CHIKMAGALUR IN SPL. CASE NO.79/2009 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 504 AND 354 OF IPC AND 3(I)(XI) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(I)(XI) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 2 MONTHS EACH FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 504 AND 354 OF IPC. ALL SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:18493 CRL.A No. 779 of 2013

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

The appellant/accused is impugning the judgment dated 08.07.2013 passed in Special Case No.79/2009 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Chikmagalur, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (for short 'SC/ST Act'), sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 354 of IPC, to under go simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 3(i)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.

¶25

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

¶26

Brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that on 18.08.2009 at 7.30 p.m., when the victim-PW1 was proceeding near bridge of the tank bund, the accused suddenly came from

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18493 CRL.A No. 779 of 2013

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

behind, pulled her saree, embraced her, gagged her mouth, bite her both cheeks, squeezed her breast and outraged her modesty thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 354 of IPC. It is her further contention that the accused committed the offences knowing fully aware that PW1 belongs to scheduled caste and committed the offence punishable under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Act.

¶30

To prove its contention, the prosecution examined

¶31

PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to 11 in support of its contention. The Trial Court after taking into consideration, all these materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, proceeded to pass the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court.

¶32

Heard Sri. H.J.Ananda, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18493 CRL.A No. 779 of 2013

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶36

“Whether the appellant-accused has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?

¶37

My answer to the above point is in the 'negative' and pass the following:

¶38

REASONS

¶39

It is the contention of the prosecution that, PW1 is the victim and she is a widow. On the date of incident at 7.30 pm., when she was proceeding at the scene of occurrence, the accused taking advantage of the situation, came from behind, caught hold of PW1, pulled her saree, bite her cheeks and squeezed her breast and also criminally intimidated. Since it was late in the evening, PW1 came to lodge the first information with the police on 19.08.2009, after getting treatment from the doctor. The victim explained the delay in lodging the complaint as there was no public transport from her village to reach the

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18493 CRL.A No. 779 of 2013

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

police station and the hospital. The explanation appears to be very reasonable and the same is not seriously disputed by the accused.

¶43

PW1 - Victim has supported the case of the prosecution and deposed about the offences committed by the accused. Even though she was subjected to lengthy crossexamination, nothing has been elicited from her to disbelieve her version. There are no material contradictions in the evidence of PW1.

¶44

PW9 is the Doctor, who examined the victim and issued Ex.P7-wound certificate. As per this document, victim was examined on the very next date i.e., on 19.08.2009 at 9.30 a.m., and found bite marks on both cheeks with pain and tenderness over neck. The wound certificate and the evidence of PW9 fully corroborates the evidence of PW1 and supports the case of the prosecution.

¶45

PW2 is the brother-in-law of PW1. However, he appears to be the eye-witness to the incident.

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18493 CRL.A No. 779 of 2013

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

PWs.3 and 4 are the mahazar witness to Ex.P4. PW5 is the other brother-in-law of PW1, who is only a circumstantial witness.

¶49

PW6 had issued Ex.P5 - the caste certificate to the effect that the victim belongs to schedule caste. PW8 is the son of PW1, who supported the case of the prosecution.

¶50

From these materials on record, I do not find any reason to suspect the case made out by the prosecution. On the other hand, the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is liable for conviction.

¶51

I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. On proper appreciation of the materials on record, the Trial Court convicted the accused as stated above and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Sections 323, 504 and 354 of IPC and for six months for the offence punishable under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Act. The quantum of sentence is also reasonable and therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. In that result, I

¶52