Siddaraju S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2025CRL.A/915/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (G Basavaraja, J., 01.12.2025) allows CRL.A No.915/2014 and acquits accused convicted under S.323 r/w 34 IPC and Ss.3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 for caste abuse and assault of a co-operative society secretary: all eyewitnesses hostile, sole testimony of complainant uncorroborated by medical evidence, unexplained delay in complaint and FIR dispatch, admitted bonus-arrears dispute suggesting afterthought complaint; benefit of doubt; refund of fine ordered.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; appellants (accused Nos.1 and 2) acquitted of the offences under Section 323 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; fine, if deposited, to be refunded; Registry directed to send copy of judgment with trial Court records to the concerned Court.

Siddaraju S Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶123

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? +1 more

¶58

Court's answer

The eyewitnesses PW2 to PW4, PW11 to PW13 did not support the prosecution case and were treated as hostile witnesses.

¶72

Ratio / Principle

The wound certificate (Exhibit P6) did not mention the name of the accused who assaulted PW1, and PW8 (the medical officer) said nothing against the accused even in his evidence; hence medical evidence lent no corroboration.

¶104

Key takeaways

There is no evidence explaining the delay in PW1 taking medical treatment and in filing the complaint against the accused.ratio¶109
The Investigating Officer gave no explanation for the delay in dispatching the FIR to the Court (column No.15 showed dispatch on 02.08.2013 at 05.00 p.m., while the FIR reached the Court on 03.08.2013 at 02.05 p.m.).ratio¶109
The complaint was lodged after a lapse of two days from the alleged incident, only after discussion with her husband and as an afterthought, creating reasonable doubt as to the conduct of PW1.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under S.374(2) CrPC against conviction by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Spl.C.No.64/2013 (dated 01.10.2014) of the appellants under S.323 r/w 34 IPC and Ss.3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, with fine of Rs.1,000/- each. Allegation: on 01.08.2013 near the Milk Produce Women's Co-operative Society, Maliyuru village, the accused abused the complainant (PW1, belonging to Adi Karnataka Scheduled Caste) in filthy language by taking her caste, slapped and dragged her, tore her nighty and threatened her. Findings: all eyewitnesses (PW2-PW4, PW11-PW13) turned hostile and the prosecution elicited nothing favourable from them; the wound certificate Ex.P6 recorded only tenderness over the left cheek and left neck, did not name the assailant, and PW8 deposed nothing against the accused; the complaint (incident 01.08.2013) was lodged on 02.08.2013 and the FIR reached the Court only on 03.08.2013 although column No.15 showed dispatch on 02.08.2013 at 05.00 p.m., with no explanation for the delay in treatment, complaint or FIR dispatch; it was admitted that the accused had demanded arrears of bonus payable by PW1 as Secretary, and the complaint was held to be an afterthought raising reasonable doubt as to her conduct. Held: in the absence of corroborative eyewitness evidence, it is not safe to convict on the sole interested testimony of PW1; the trial Court misappreciated the evidence and no cogent, convincing, corroborative, trustworthy legal evidence existed. Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted; fine, if deposited, to be refunded. (G Basavaraja, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49996 CRL.A No. 915 of 2014

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 915 OF 2014 (C)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SIDDARAJU S. S/O MAHASETTI, AGED 30 YEARS, LAW STUDENT, R/AT UPPALAGARE VILLAGE, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.

¶9

KUMARA S. S/O MAHASETTI, AGED 28 YEARS, RUNNING A MILK DAIRY, R/AT UPPALAGARE VILLAGE, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430. …APPELLANTS

¶10

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR A. V., ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KIRUGALALU P.S., REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP.)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:49996 CRL.A No. 915 of 2014

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:1.10.14 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.DIST. AND S.J., MANDYA IN SPL.C.NO.64/13 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1)(X)XI) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 R/W 34 OF IPC AND THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED TO PAY A FINE OF RS.1,000/- EACH IN DEFAULT S.I. FOR ONE MONTH FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

The appellants have preferred this appeal against the

¶24

judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Spl. C. No.64/2013 dated 01.10.2014.

¶25

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

¶26

The brief facts leading to this appeal are that

¶27

the Dy.S.P, Malavalli Sub-Division, Malavalli submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 323, 354, 504, 506 read with 34

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:49996 CRL.A No. 915 of 2014

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶32

It is alleged by the prosecution that on 01.08.2013 at about 06.30 p.m. near Milk Produce Women's Co-operative Society Ltd., at Maliyuru village when the complainant was taking the milk with the help of CW2-Nanjamma and at that time accused Nos.1 and 2

¶33

came and asked her with regard to giving of bonus of five years and at that time complainant requested the accused No.1 to come after 5 minutes and at that time accused No.1 questioned with regard to the delay of one month and the complainant told that her children are not well and

¶34

thereby she is not able to write the document and at that time accused Nos.1 and 2 abused her in filthy language as ¯ÉÆÃ¥Àgï ªÀÄÄAqÉ, ¸ÀÆ¼ÉÃ ªÀÄÄAqÉ, ºÉÆ¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAqÉ by taking her caste

¶35

knowing fully well that she belongs to SC community and humiliated her and insulted her in the public view and accused No.1 slapped on her cheek and also assaulted on her left neck and with an intention to outrage her modesty

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:49996 CRL.A No. 915 of 2014

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

caught hold her nighty, dragged her and torn her nighty and also threatened the complainant stating that they will kill her if she gave a complaint to the police and accordingly after arrival of her husband the complainant had been to the police station and filed complaint basing upon which the Kirugavalu police registered a case and thereafter, Dy.S.P, Malavalli, took up further investigation and collected the evidence and submitted charge-sheet against the accused for the above said offences. After filing the charge-sheet the case was registered in Spl.C No.64/2013 and accused Nos.1 and 2 were enlarged on bail.

¶39

Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court has framed charges against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the alleged commission of offences, same was read over and explained to accused Nos.1 and 2. Having understood the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49996 CRL.A No. 915 of 2014

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

To prove the guilt of the accused, in all, 13 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW13. 9 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P9. One material object marked as MO.1. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witness. However, they have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.

¶43

Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 323 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 and accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code.

¶44

The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that, the trial judge has not properly appreciated

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:49996 CRL.A No. 915 of 2014

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

the evidence on record in proper perspective. The trial

¶49

judge grossly erred in assessing the evidence of eyewitnesses examined as PW2 to PW4, PW11 to PW13. Though independent witnesses have not supported, merely on the evidence of PW1 and PW8, the trial judge has convicted both the appellants. The trial judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW1 who admitted that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and reasons for such delay have not been explained.

¶50

It is submitted that the accused has questioned PW1 regarding issuance of bonus, which was misappropriated by the PW1, in this regard the Co-operative Development Officer has lodged a complaint against PW1. When the accused has demanded for giving arrears of bonus, PW1 instead of paying bonus amount, with a view to take revenge she lodged a false complaint against the accused. On all these grounds, it is sought for allowing this appeal.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:49996 CRL.A No. 915 of 2014

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

As against this, the learned High Court

¶55

Government Pleader Sri.R.Rangaswamy, would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and sought for dismissal of this appeal.

¶56

Having heard the arguments on both sides and perusal of materials the following points would arise for my consideration:

¶57

i) Whether the trial Court has committed

¶58

an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989?

¶59

ii) What order?

¶60

Regarding Point No.1:

¶61

I have examined the materials placed before

¶62

this Court. It is the case of the prosecution that on

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:49996 CRL.A No. 915 of 2014

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

01.08.2013 at about 06.30 p.m. near Milk Produce Women's Co-operative Society Ltd., at Maliyuru village when the complainant was taking the milk with the help of CW2-Nanjamma and at that time accused Nos.1 and 2

¶66

came and asked her with regard to the giving of bonus of five years and at that time complainant requested the accused No.1 to come after 5 minutes and at that time accused No.1 questioned with regard to the delay of one month and the complainant told that her children are not well and thereby she is not able to write the document and at that time accused Nos.1 and 2 abused her in filthy language as ¯ÉÆÃ¥Àgï ªÀÄÄAqÉ, ¸ÀÆ¼ÉÃ ªÀÄÄAqÉ, ºÉÆ¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAqÉ by taking her

¶67

caste knowing fully well that she belongs to SC community and humiliated her and insulted her in the public view and accused No.1 slapped on her cheek and also assaulted on her left neck and with an intention to outrage her modesty

¶68

caught hold her nighty and dragged her and torn her nighty and also threatened the complainant stating that they will kill her if she gives complaint to the police and

¶69

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:49996 CRL.A No. 915 of 2014

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

accordingly after arrival of her husband the complainant had been to the police station and filed a complaint basing upon which the Kirugavalu police registered a case and accordingly, has filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

¶72

To substantiate the case of the prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW13. 9 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P9. One material object marked as MO.1. According to the case of the prosecution, PW2 to PW4, PW11 to PW13 are the eyewitness to this incident. All these witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and all these witnesses treated as hostile witnesses.

¶73

The Learned Public Prosecutor has crossexamined them after treating them as hostile witnesses with the permission of the Court. Even during the crossexamination of Public Prosecutor, PW2 to PW4 and PW11 to PW13 have categorically denied the statement said to

¶74

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:49996 CRL.A No. 915 of 2014

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

have been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which are marked as Exhibit P3 to P5 and P9.

¶77

PW12 and PW13 said to be the attestors to the mahazar witnesses, have not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶78

PW8-Dr.K.Mahesha, has deposed that he has examined the injured and issued the wound certificate as per Exhibit P6.

¶79

PW9-M.R. Rajesh, Tahashildar has deposed regarding the issuance of Caste Certificate as per Exhibit P7.

¶80

PW10 - Obedulla Khan, the police constable, has deposed as to the submission of FIR to the Court.

¶81

PW5 to PW7 are the police officials who speak about their respective investigation.

¶82

11 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC:49996 CRL.A No. 915 of 2014

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

Now the question is whether the sole interested testimony of PW1 along with the Medical Officer PW8, is sufficient to convict the accused for the alleged commission of offence or not? In this regard, it is necessary to mention here as to the complaint Exhibit P1, filed by PW1. In Exhibit P1, PW1 has stated as under:

¶86

" ತಮ�� ಮುಖ��ಾ� ��ಸುವ��ೇ�ೆಂದ�ೆ ಮ�ಯೂರು �ಾ�ಮದ ಆ�

¶87

ಕ�ಾ ಟಕ ಜ�ಾಂಗದವ�ಾದ ನನ% &ೕ'ೆ ��ಾಂಕ 01.08.2013 ರ�� (ಾಯಂ)ಾಲ 6.30 ರ�� +ೈ-ಯ�� .ಾಲು ಅಳ1ೆ 2ಾ3 )ಾಯ 4ವ 5ಸು�6ರು�ಾಗ ಪಕ8ದ �ಾ�ಮದ ಉಪ:ಲ�ೇ- )ೊಪ:ಲು �ಾ�ಮದ 4�ಾ;<ಾದ ಉ=ಾ:ರ ಜ�ಾಂಗದ ಎ? . ;ದ@�ಾಜು AB 2ಾದCೆDE ಎಂಬುವವನು ಮ5Gೆ +ೈಒಳ�ೆ ನು�I Jೋನ? Kಷಯ ಬ�ೆI )ೇ��ಾ@ಗ �ಾನು ಅನಂತರ ಬ4% ಎಂದು .ೇ�ದ)ೆ8 ನನ% &ೕ'ೆ ಗ'ಾMೆ 2ಾ3 'ೋಪN , ಸೂGೆ ಮುಂ+ೆ�ೆಂದು ಇನೂ% ಇ1ಾ�� .ೊಲಸು ಪದಗ�ಂದ Jೈದು ನನ% &ೕ'ೆ )ೈ 2ಾ3 .ೊ+ೆದು ಬMೆE ಹ-ದು .ಾQರು1ಾ6�ೆ . ಅನಂತರ ಮ1ೆ6 .ೋ� ಅ�ೇ �ಾ�ಮದ ಕು2ಾN AB 2ಾದCೆDE ಮತು6 ಯುವಕರನು% ಕ�ೆದು)ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ;ದ@�ಾಜು ಎಂಬವನು .ೊ'ೆಯ Sಾ� ಎಂಬುವವ-�ೆ 4ಮ�ೆ ಇTEರJೇ)ಾದ�ೆ �ಾU ಎಷEರಮDE�ರJೇ)ೆಂದು ನVಮ Sಾ�ಯ ಬ�ೆI ಇನು% ಹಲ�ಾರು ಪದಗ�ಂದ Jೈದು )ೊ'ೆ Jೆದ-)ೆ .ಾQರು1ಾ6�ೆ . ಅದ)ೆ8 �ಾನು W�ೕಸ-�ೆ ದೂರು )ೊಡು1ೆ6ೕ�ೆ ಎಂದು .ೇ�ದ@)ೆ8 ಅಂತಹ W�ೕಸರನು% ಎಷುE �ೋ3 ADEರು1ೆ6ೕ�ೆ ಎಂದು .ೇ�ರು1ಾ6�ೆ ಮತು6 ಆ�ಾ�ೆI

¶88

12 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:49996 CRL.A No. 915 of 2014

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

ಬಂದು ;ಬXಂ�ವಗ ದವ-ಗೂ .ಾಗೂ ಉ1ಾ:ದಕ-�ೆ ತುಂJಾ 1ೊಂದ�ೆ )ೊಡು�6ರು1ಾ6�ೆ . ಆದುದ@-ಂದ 1ಾವ�ಗಳY ನನ�ೆ ಸೂಕ6 ರZ[ೆ ಮತು6 �ಾ�ಯ �ೊರQ;)ೊಡJೇ)ೆಂದು ತಮ��=ಾ�ಥ �ೆ 2ಾ3)ೊಳY]1ೆ6ೕ�ೆ " .

¶92

The alleged incident took place on 01.08.2013 at 06.30 p.m. The complaint came to be filed on 02.08.2013 at 16.30 hours. The FIR Exhibit P8, on the basis of this complaint, case was registered in Crime No. 101/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 323, 354, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Exhibit P8 FIR reveals that the FIR reached the Court on 03.08.2013 at 02.05 p.m.

¶93

PW1-Jayamala has deposed in her evidence that she was working as a Secretary of Milk Produce Women's Co-operative Society Ltd., at Maliyuru Village since 8 years and she belongs to Adi Karnataka Scheduled Caste and she knows the accused for about 20 years and that on 01.04.2013 at about 06.30 p.m. when Nanjamma was taking milk and she was noting the same at that time

¶94

13 -

¶95

NC: 2025:KHC:49996 CRL.A No. 915 of 2014

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

the accused came to the Diary and asked with regard to

¶98

the bonus and when she stated that she is unable to write all documents at one time and asked them to come later and at that time accused abused her in filthy language and humiliated her and also slapped on her cheek and caught hold of her nighty, dragged her and torn her nighty, dishonored her and also threatened her of dire consequences. The villagers Lalithamma, Rudrappa and Puttasiddamma who had been to the spot for giving milk separated the scuffle and thereafter she locked the society and went to her house and her husband was not present and he came to the house at about 09.00 p.m. and she told the incident to him and he told that they will go in the morning and thereafter they went to the Kirugavalu police station and filed a complaint on 03.08.2013 and police came and conducted a spot mahzar as per Exhibit P2.

¶99

PW8 - Dr. Mahesh has deposed regarding the

¶100

issuance of wound certificate and examination of the accused. The wound certificate is marked as Exhibit P6.

¶101

14 -

¶102

NC: 2025:KHC:49996 CRL.A No. 915 of 2014

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

The wound certificate reveals that Smt.Jayamala W/o Guruswami went to the hospital with the history of assault on 01.08.2013 at about 06.30 p.m. The doctor has examined this injured on 02.08.2013 and found the injury No.1 - Tenderness over the left cheek. injury No.2. Tenderness over the left side of the neck. No external injuries. The doctor has opined that all injuries are simple in nature. In Exhibit P6 the medical officer-PW8 has not mentioned the name of the accused, who has assaulted PW1. Even in the evidence of PW8, he has not whispered anything against this accused.

¶105

It has come in the evidence of PW1 that, he has

¶106

not whispered anything as to the delay in filing the complaint. Though the police have registered the case on 02.08.2013, they have not submitted the FIR to the Court at the earliest point of time. Only on the next day of filing the complaint i.e., on 03.08.2013, the Investigating Officer has submitted the First Information Report to the Court at 2.05 p.m. as per Exhibit P8. The FIR reveals that

¶107

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:49996 CRL.A No. 915 of 2014

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

in column No.15, the date and time of dispatch to the Court is shown as 02.08.2013 at 05.00 p.m. The Investigating Officer has not explained anything as to the delay in dispatching the FIR to the Court. If, really the accused has assaulted PW1 as alleged by the prosecution, she could have take treatment by the Medical Officer at the earliest point of time. On that day, she did not go to the hospital. Even on the date of incident, she has not lodged complaint to the police. Absolutely there is no evidence as to the delay in taking treatment by the Medical Officer and also filing complaint against the accused. It is an admitted fact that PW1 being a Secretary has to pay the arrears of bonus to the accused.

¶110

It is also admitted fact that accused have demanded the arrears of bonus. When the accused have demanded the bonus, only after discussing with her husband and as on after thought, she lodged a complaint after lapse of 2 days from the date of alleged incident, which will create reasonable doubt as to the conduct of

¶111

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:49996 CRL.A No. 915 of 2014

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

PW1. All the material eye-witnesses have not supported

¶114

the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has not elicited any favourable answers from them to substantiate the case of the prosecution. Even the prosecution has failed to elicit why these material eye- witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. In the absence of cogent, corroborative and supporting evidence of eyewitnesses, the sole interested testimony of PW1, which is not corroborated by medical evidence and also for want of proper explanation of delay in filing the complaint, will create doubt about the alleged incident. Under the given set of circumstances, it is not safe to convict the accused

¶115

on the basis of sole and interested testimony of PW1. Accordingly, the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. On re-appreciation of entire evidence on record, I do not

¶116

find any cogent, convincing, corroborative, trustworthy legal evidence before the Court. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

¶117

17 -

¶118

NC: 2025:KHC:49996 CRL.A No. 915 of 2014

¶119

HC-KAR

¶120

Regarding Point No.2:

¶121

For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:

¶122

ORDER

¶123

i) Appeal is allowed.

¶124

ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Spl.C.No.64/2013 dated 01.10.2014, is set aside.

¶125

iii) Accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the offence under Section 323 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶126

iv) The fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellants shall be returned to them in accordance with law.

¶127