Insufficient evidence and reliance on interested testimonies led to the appeal allowing the acquittal of the appellant.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Accused No.1, who is the appellant herein, has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 04.08.2014 passed in Spl.C.No.08/2013 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (for short 'the trial Court').

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

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the Dy.S.P Srirangapatna Sub-Division, Srirangapatna submitted a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 325 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. It is alleged by the prosecution that, on 24.12.2012, when there was no supply of drinking water of Sadugonahalli in the colony of SC/ST and at around 07.30 p.m. when the accused No.1- Venkatesha, who is a water supplier, was sitting near the shop of CW7-Ramesh, the complainant asked him with regard to not supplying of the water tank of their colony, accused No.1 abused the complainant as by taking his caste. Being aware that he belongs to Scheduled caste community, accused No.1 humiliated the complainant in public view and assaulted him on his face. CW2-Jagadeesha and CW3-Chandrakala, the son and wife of the complainant came to separate the scuffle, accused 1 to 4 quarreled with them. Accused 1 and 2 assaulted CW2 with their hands and accused No.2 assaulted CW3, fisted on her nose and caused injuries to her. Accused No.3 assaulted the complainant and consequently he fell down, and accused No.3 kicked him by causing grievous injury on the right side of his chest. Hence, the complainant has lodged a complaint. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the commission of alleged offence.

4. Upon hearing the charges, the trial Court has framed charges for the commission of alleged offence. Same were read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the case of the prosecution, in all ten witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 10. Twelve documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P12. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.

6. During the course of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, five documents were marked as Exhibits D1 to D5. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court has heard the arguments on both sides and acquitted accused Nos.2 to 4 for the commission of alleged offence under sections 323, 325 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and accused No.1 is acquitted of the offence under section 325 of , however, convicted accused No.1 for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and passed a sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and he is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under of .

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that, the appellant is innocent. He has not committed any offence as alleged against him. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court is capricious, erroneous, arbitrary, illegal, and bad