Partly allowed

Rangaswamy v. State by Hassan Rural Police

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2025CRL.A/963/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against conviction for outraging modesty, criminal intimidation and caste atrocities. Court upheld conviction under Sections 354 and 506 IPC but acquitted under SC/ST Act for lack of ingredients, reducing sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court with enhanced fine paid as compensation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part: acquittal under SC/ST Act sections 3(1)(x), (xi); conviction under Sections 354, 506 IPC maintained; sentence reduced to SI till rising of Court plus Rs.25,000 fine as compensa

Rangaswamy Vs State by Hassan Rural Police — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4888 CRL.A No. 963 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 963 OF 2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RANGASWAMY S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA @ RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT AGALAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN CODE NO.571 450

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE BY HASSAN RURAL POLICE, HASSAN, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PIN CODE:01.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:07.09.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HASSAN

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:4888 CRL.A No. 963 of 2013

¶20

IN SPECIAL CASE NO.109/2011, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354, 506 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(x), (xi) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Heard Sri.C.N. Raju, learned counsel for the

¶24

accused/appellant and Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

¶25

The appellant has suffered an order of

¶26

conviction in Special Case No.109/2011 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Hassan (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "Special Judge"), by judgment dated 07.09.2013 and sentenced as under:

¶27

" The accused is sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code.

¶28

Accused is further sentenced to undergo S.I for two years, for the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:4888 CRL.A No. 963 of 2013

¶31

Accused is further sentenced to undergo S.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for two months, for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶32

Accused is further sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for two months, for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶33

All the substantive sentences of accused shall run concurrently."

¶34

Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

¶35

3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with Hassan Rural Police by the de facto complainant - Smt. Manjula (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘victim’), on 23.08.2011, alleging that, when she was in the process of

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4888 CRL.A No. 963 of 2013

¶37

weeding out unwanted plants in the agricultural field where she had grown ginger crop, at about 2:30 p.m., the appellant herein, all of a sudden, appeared in the said place and offered 100/- to her. When she questioned as to why he was tendering 100/- to her, the accused said to have told her that she should proceed with him to the land where Maize crop was grown, to have physical relationship. When the victim refused, the accused caught hold of her by his hands and dragged her and with an intention to outrage her modesty, indecently, touched her body parts and made her to fall down.

¶38

3.2. When the victim raised alarm, Dyavamma and Thangyamma who were working in the neighbouring land came there. On seeing them, the accused ran away from the spot. Before running away, the accused abused the victim, taking out her caste name and also gave life threat to her and her family members.

¶39

3.3. Based on the complaint, Hassan Rural Police registered a case for the offences punishable under

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:4888 CRL.A No. 963 of 2013

¶42

Sections 354 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred as "IPC") and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "SC/ST (POA) Act").

¶43

3.4. Later on, a thorough investigation has been conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and then a charge sheet came to be filed. The accused obtained an order of grant of anticipatory bail.

¶44

3.5. Learned Special Judge, after taking cognizance

¶45

of the aforesaid offences, secured the presence of the appellant and in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred as "Cr.P.C."), framed charges.

¶46

3.6. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, trial was held.

¶47

3.7. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused,

¶48

the prosecution, in all, examined nine witnesses

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:4888 CRL.A No. 963 of 2013

¶51

comprising of complainant, eye witnesses - Dyavamma and Thangyamma, the Revenue Officer, who issued Caste Certificate of complainant, father of the complainant, panch witnesses and Investigation Officers. The prosecution, in all, produced five documentary evidence, which are exhibited and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-5, comprising of complaint, spot mahazar, Caste Certificate, FIR and rough sketch of the scene of offence.

¶52

3.8. From the cross-examination of PW-3, the contradiction elicited is marked as Ex.D-1, on behalf of the accused/appellant.

¶53

3.9. On conclusion of recording of the evidence,

¶54

learned Special Judge recorded the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein the accused has denied all the incriminating circumstances that were found against him in the prosecution case.

¶55

3.10. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge heard

¶56

the parties in detail and convicted the appellant as referred supra.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:4888 CRL.A No. 963 of 2013

¶59

3.11. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal.

¶60

Sri.C.N. Raju, learned counsel for the

¶61

accused/appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, contended that there are varied versions in the oral testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and none of them are reliable versions and the same have not been properly appreciated by the learned Special Judge while passing the impugned judgment, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeal.

¶62

4.1. He further pointed out that the alleged abuses

¶63

made by the appellant taking out the caste name of the victim/complainant so as to degrade the complainant in the public view has not been established and therefore, the offence under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, needs to be set aside by allowing the appeal in part.

¶64

4.2. He also contended that, taking into

¶65

consideration the fact that the incident has occurred way

¶66

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:4888 CRL.A No. 963 of 2013

¶68

back in the year 2011, wherein trivial incident has taken place which has been blown out of proportion on account of a civil dispute that was pending between the appellant and the complainant party, a false case has been foisted against the appellant which has not been rightly appreciated by the learned Special Judge, even though pendency of the civil dispute is admitted by PW-2, in categorical terms and thus sought for allowing the appeal.

¶69

4.3. Alternatively, Sri. Raju, learned counsel for the appellant contended that, in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction, the conviction can only be maintained for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC and not under the provisions of the SC/ST(POA) Act and sought for allowing of the appeal to such an extent and to modify the sentence by enhancing the fine amount and set aside the period of imprisonment ordered by the Special Judge.

¶70

Per contra, Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State

¶71

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:4888 CRL.A No. 963 of 2013

¶73

supports the impugned judgment by contending that, admittedly, Dyavamma and Thangyamma have arrived at the spot, after hearing the hue and cry made by the complainant while resisting the forcible outrage of modesty of the complainant by appellant and they have heard the appellant abusing the complainant by taking out her caste name so as to degrade her in public view and also they have seen the appellant dragging the complainant by holding her hand, which establishes all the ingredients to attract the aforesaid offences and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶74

5.1. In so far as the alternate submission made by the learned counsel for appellant is concerned, Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State contended that, if people like the appellant are shown mercy and leniency, the similarly placed perpetrators of the crime would get encouraged and such leniency could be misunderstood by the society

¶75

10 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:4888 CRL.A No. 963 of 2013

¶77

at large and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal in- toto .

¶78

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously and on such perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration:

¶79

1) Whether the material evidence on record would be sufficient enough to maintain the order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST(POA) Act?

¶80

2) Whether the appellant makes out a case of legal infirmity and perversity in the impugned judgment?

¶81

3) Whether the sentence needs modification of the impugned order?

¶82

4) What order?

¶83

11 -

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC:4888 CRL.A No. 963 of 2013

¶85

REG. POINT Nos.1 AND 2:

¶86

In the case on hand, the incident that occurred on 23.08.2011 at 2:30 p.m. is established by the prosecution

¶87

by placing cogent evidence on record. Admittedly, even according to the prosecution, when the complainant was in the process of weeding out the unwanted plants from the ginger plantation in her land, at about 2:30 p.m., all of a sudden, the appellant came and offered `100/- and told her to accompany him for sexual favour. When the same was refused by her, accused tried to forcibly take her by holding her hand. The complainant has stated that, in the process, the clothes worn by her were torn.

¶88

But PW-2 and PW-3 have specifically stated that

¶89

they have not observed the tearing of the clothes in the incident. When the complainant raised the alarm, PW-2 and PW-3, who were working in the neighbouring land, which was at least 200 feet away from the spot of the incident, rushed to the spot.

¶90

12 -

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC:4888 CRL.A No. 963 of 2013

¶92

According to PW-1-complainant, on seeing PW-2 and PW-3, the accused ran away from the spot. It is the specific case of the complainant that the accused abused her even before PW-2 and PW-3 could come to the spot. Whereas, PW-3 has stated that she has heard the accused abusing PW-1 by taking out her caste name and also gave her life threat. PW-2 did not say so. Therefore, there is sufficient force in the argument put forth on behalf of the appellant with regard to the allegation levelled against the appellant insofar as to attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST(POA)Act.

¶93

Admittedly, there was a civil dispute between the complainant and accused. PW-2 -Dyavamma categorically admits the pendency of the civil dispute and so also the dispute with regard to the pathway. PW-2 also admits that the Tahsildar, MLA and others had visited the spot insofar as the pathway dispute is concerned. PW-1 pleaded ignorance about all these aspects of the matter by

¶94

13 -

¶95

NC: 2025:KHC:4888 CRL.A No. 963 of 2013

¶96

stating that she had been to Bengaluru. It is a clear case of suppression of material facts.

¶97

Admittedly, the prosecution materials,

¶98

especially, the charge sheet materials do not speak anything about the pendency of a civil dispute. When the Tahsildar, MLA, Police and others had visited, the question of suppressing the said aspect of the matter in the charge sheet raises sufficient doubt about the very incident itself. The father of the complainant has deposed before the Court that, as usual, he visited the land with food, in the afternoon and at that juncture, PW-1 was in morose feeling and was sitting in a place and on enquiry, she revealed about the incident. Whereas, PW-1, in the complaint as well as in her oral testimony has stated that, after the incident, she went home and informed her parents and then lodged the complaint.

¶99

All these factors, when viewed cumulatively,

¶100

there are varied versions, with regard to the incident, among the oral testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and

¶101

14 -

¶102

NC: 2025:KHC:4888 CRL.A No. 963 of 2013

¶103

the father of the complainant. Assuming that all those contradictions are minor in nature, as is contended on behalf of the prosecution, the very fact of insulting the complainant in the public view had to be established for upholding the order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST(POA) Act.

¶104

Moreover, merely holding the hand or dragging the complainant would not be sufficient enough to infer that only in order to insult PW-1 in the public view, the accused has committed the said act. Therefore, in the absence of necessary ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST(POA) Act, the conviction order recorded by the learned Special Judge for the aforesaid offence needs a re-look, especially, while exercising the appellate powers vested in this Court.

¶105

Upon re-appreciation of the above material evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter is to be treated as an isolated incident.

¶106

15 -

¶107

NC: 2025:KHC:4888 CRL.A No. 963 of 2013

¶108

The appellant belongs to 'Besta' (fisherman) community and owning lands adjacent to the land of the complainant.

¶109

PW-2 has admitted that there is a civil dispute. Admittedly, the appellant has to pass through the land of PW-1 to reach his land. If the incident as is alleged by PW-1 had taken place and the appellant had an eye on PW-1, who is a widow, then the appellant could have done that earlier also. It is pertinent to note that only after the civil dispute arose, the said complaint came to be filed. Therefore, the argument put forth on behalf of the appellant that in order to gain an upper hand in the pending civil litigation, PW-1 took advantage of her caste insofar as the isolated incident is concerned, cannot be brushed aside lightly.

¶110

PW-2 having supported the case of the prosecution in- toto , PW-3 stating that she has not noticed any injury nor clothes being torn worn by PW-1, there arises sufficient doubt with regard to the self-serving testimony of PW-1 about the ingredients required to

¶111

16 -

¶112

NC: 2025:KHC:4888 CRL.A No. 963 of 2013

¶113

attract the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3 (1)(xi) of the SC/ST(POA) Act.

¶114

It is needless to emphasise that the prosecution has to travel a long distance between 'may be proved' and the 'actual proof'.

¶115

Any amount of suspicion would not take the seat of proof is yet another celebrated principle of criminal jurisprudence.

¶116

Likewise, if two views are permissible in a set of circumstances, the view that favours the accused must be preferred, especially by the Trial Judge, while recording an order of conviction or acquittal.

¶117

Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution witnesses would not be sufficient enough to maintain conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST(POA) Act. As such, the appellant needs to be acquitted for said offence.

¶118

17 -

¶119

NC: 2025:KHC:4888 CRL.A No. 963 of 2013

¶120

The material on record would establish that Dyavamma and Thangyamma who were working in the neighbouring land, on hearing the hue and cry raised by PW-1, arrived at the spot and at that point of time, the accused ran away. Why would a lady working in her land would unnecessarily raise a false alarm and accused running away from the spot is a question that remains unanswered on behalf of the appellant.

¶121

Under such circumstances, when the testimony of the complainant is appreciated, it is crystal clear that the accused was working in the neighbouring land near the place of incident and did something to her, which resulted in raising the alarm by PW-1 and PW-2 and PW-3 could rush to the spot.

¶122

Therefore, the material on record would be sufficient enough to maintain the order of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC. PW-1 to PW-3 have consistently spoken about the

¶123

18 -

¶124

NC: 2025:KHC:4888 CRL.A No. 963 of 2013

¶125

life threat being given by the appellant to the complainant,

¶126

after he tried to run away from the spot.

¶127

In view of the foregoing discussion, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered partly in the affirmative.

¶128

REG. POINT No.3:

¶129

This Court having recorded the above point Nos. 1 and 2 partly in the affirmative, especially, recording the order of acquittal for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the sentence of imprisonment recorded by the Special Judge needs a re-look.

¶130

Admittedly, the appellant is a first-time

¶131

offender. Moreover, he is the neighbouring land owner. The appellant and PW-1/complainant have to stay in the same place for years to come. In order to maintain peace and harmony, if the appellant is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a day till the rising of the Court,

¶132

for the offences punishable under Section 354 and 506 of IPC, by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of `25,000/-

¶133

NC: 2025:KHC:4888 CRL.A No. 963 of 2013

¶134

19 -

¶135

and the entire enhanced sum of `25,000/-, if ordered as compensation to PW-1, the ends of justice would be met.

¶136

Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative .

¶137

REG. POINT No.4:

¶138

In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following:

¶139

ORDER

¶140

i) The criminal appeal is allowed in part ;

¶141

ii) While maintaining the conviction of the

¶142

appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC, the accused appellant is acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST(POA) Act. Consequently, the sentence is modified, by directing the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for a day till the rising of the Court and ordered to pay

¶143

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:4888 CRL.A No. 963 of 2013

¶144

enhanced fine amount of `25,000/- before the Special Judge, on or before 28.02.2025 , failing which, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

¶145

iii) After payment of the enhanced fine amount of 25,000/-, the entire sum of 25,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant(PW-1)Manjula under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. by securing her presence under due identification.

¶146

Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this judgment forthwith, for issuing a modified conviction order.

¶147

Ordered accordingly.

¶148

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶149

BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8/CT:SNN

Rangaswamy v. State by Hassan Rural Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangaswamy v. State by Hassan Rural Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumar D @ Dio Kumar Vs State by Karnataka

D S Shankarappa Vs State by Lokayuktha Police

P Raju Vs State by Central Bureau of Investigation

Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Karnataka