Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 5920
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, RAJESH RAI K, JJ
STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HUMANABAD POLICE STATION – Appellant
Versus
GIRISH S/O JAGADISH RAO ASTIKAR – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200006 OF 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI SIDDLING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP
For the Respondents:SRI SANTOSH PATIL, ADVOCATE
The prosecution must provide sufficient evidence to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal is justified when evidence does not support the claims.
Headnote:(A) IPC - Sections 323, 506, 376, 420 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Acquittal of the accused - Appeal against - Prosecution's evidence was based primarily on the testimony of the victim which lacked credibility, with a significant delay in lodging the complaint and no medical evidence corroborating the alleged assault - As per the standards of proof, the prosecution failed to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, thereby justifying the Special Judge's acquittal decision. (Paras 1-16)
(B) Appeal against acquittal - Standards of review - The appellate court's role is to discern whether the trial court's decision is legally sound without substituting its judgment based on different interpretations of evidence. (Para 14)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. outline of the case and background of events leading to the appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by both the state and defense counsel regarding credibility of evidence. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's assessment of evidence and procedural issues related to the charges. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. principles for appellate courts in reviewing acquittals. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. final decision dismissing the appeal. (Para 17) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K.,)
The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment in Special Case No.1/2014 dated 04.09.2014 passed by the Special Judge and Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Special Judge’ for short), whereby the Special Judge has acquitted the accused/respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 506, 376 and 420 of IPC and Section 3(ii)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’).
2. The factual matrix of the case in brief is that, P.W.4, the victim in this case is the member of a Scheduled Caste and she belongs to Hindu Holeya community. She was working as a supervisor in Aadhar Unique Identification Authority in the year 2012, where the accused was her co-worker; thereby they both fell in love with each other. The accused by taking advantage of friendship, developed intimacy with her and also had physical contact with her by assuring her to marry. Thereafter, he failed to fulfill his promise and on this background, on 28.08.2013 at about 8.00 p.m., when accused/respondent was at his house at Humnabad, victim went there and all of a sudden, accused abused her in filthy language by mentioning her caste. Further, he also stated that, since she belongs to Scheduled Caste community, he will not marry her and if she force him to marry her, he will toss acid on her face. Subsequently, the said aspect was brought to the knowledge of her parents, they also made efforts to pursue the accused, which went in vain. Later, on 20.09.2013 at about 6.30 p.m., when the accused was standing near Ambedkar Circle, Humnabad, the victim enquired him about the promise assured by him about marrying her. However, accused once again abused and threatened her with dire consequences, assaulted and caused hurt to her. As such, the victim lodged the complaint before the complainant- Police on 20.09.2013 as per Ex.P3. On the strength of Ex.P3, complainant Police registered the case in Crime No.197/2013 dated 20.09.2013 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 493, 506, 417 of IPC and under Sections 3(i)(xii) and 3(ii)(v) of the Act before the Special Court. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge framed the charges against the accused for the said offences and the same was read to him verbatim. However, the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
3. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution in total examined 12 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 12 so also got marked 08 documents at Exs.P.1 to 8.
4. On assessing both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by the State.
5. We have heard the learned Addl. SPP for the appellant/State so also learned counsel Sri Santosh Patil for the respondent/accused.
6. The primary contention of the learned Addl.State Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State is that the learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.4-Prosecutrix in a right perspective. She has stated in her complaint-Ex.P.3 so also in her evidence that the accused committed sexual intercourse on her for a period of 2 and ½ half years on the premise of marrying her. Thereafter, he threatened her with dire consequences and had also assaulted on her. This evidence of P.W.4 clearly corroborates to the testimony of her father (P.W.7). Further, P.Ws.8 and 9 also stated that a Panchaya
