IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH
M.G.UMA
Amaresha, S/o. Bangarappa – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Represented By Addl. State Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.G. UMA, J.
-
The appellant in Crl.A. No.200104/2018 being accused No.1, the appellant in Crl.A. No.200100/2019 being accused No.2 and the appellant in Crl.A. No.200098/2018 being accused No.4 in Special Case (S.C.) No.23/2013 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur, are impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, convicting them along with accused Nos.3 and 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 504, 307 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentencing them as under :
“Acting under Section 143 R/w Section 149 of IPC, the accused 1 to 5 are hereby sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 6 months and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and default to pay the fine to undergo S.I. for a further period of two months.
-
Acting under Section 147 R/w Section 149 of IPC, the accused 1 to 5 are hereby sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 2 years and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default to pay the fine to undergo S.I. for a further period of two months.
Acting under Section 148 R/w Section 149 of IPC, the accu
Court affirmed convictions for assault under IPC but reversed those for attempted murder and caste-based abuse due to lack of evidence, emphasizing intent and corroborative testimony.
The court held that reliance on inconsistent and insufficient witness testimonies, alongside lack of medical evidence for grievous injuries, invalidates the conviction, necessitating acquittal.
Credibility of witness testimony is critical, as inconsistencies and reliance on interested parties undermine the prosecution’s case, especially amid ongoing civil disputes.
For conviction under the SC/ST Act, prosecution must prove both caste identity and an intent to harm due to that identity; lack of such proof invalidates the charge.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and significant inconsistencies in witness statements can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove all elements of an offence beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence led to a conviction modification from Section 307 to Section 324 IPC.
No prima facie case for framing charges under IPC 307 absent life-endangering intention on non-vital injuries; SC/ST Act inapplicable sans public-heard caste slurs, corroboration, amid rivalry and FI....
The judgment confirms that a conviction can stand under IPC while acquitting charges under SC & ST (PoA) Act due to lack of sufficient evidence.
To convict under SC/ST Act, evidence must show the crime was motivated by the victim's caste; mere membership is insufficient without demonstrable bias.
The necessity of independent and impartial witnesses in cases under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to substantiate claims of public humiliation and intimidation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.