1. State appeal against acquittal in a case involving alleged rioting and offensive conduct towards a specific community, involving damage to public cultural property. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 54325
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G Basavaraja, J
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Paramesha – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1428 OF 2015 (A)
Important Points
The judgment affirms that an acquittal should not be overturned if the trial court found material contradictions in witness testimonies and a lack of clarity regarding visibility at the crime scene, as the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
Subject
Criminal - Atrocity/SC-ST Act
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Benefit of Doubt - Where there are material contradictions in the testimonies of eye witnesses and a failure to explain the visibility/lighting conditions at the scene of the crime, the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, justifying an acquittal. (Para 11)
(B) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Standard of Proof - Allegations of caste-based abuse and destruction of community symbols require cogent evidence to sustain a conviction; mere filing of chargesheets without consistent witness testimony is insufficient to overturn a trial court's finding of acquittal. (Para 7, 11)
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite the testimonies of injured witnesses under the IPC and SC/ST (POA) Act.
(B) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Standard of Proof - Allegations of caste-based abuse and destruction of community symbols require cogent evidence to sustain a conviction; mere filing of chargesheets without consistent witness testimony is insufficient to overturn a trial court's finding of acquittal. (Para 7, 11)
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite the testimonies of injured witnesses under the IPC and SC/ST (POA) Act.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Nageshwarappa
For the Respondents: Manjunath N.D.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Nageshwarappa
For the Respondents: Manjunath N.D.
Table of Contents
2. The State contended the trial court failed to appreciate injured witness testimony, while respondents argued the acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and lack of proof. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. The court observed material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, compounded by the lack of visibility at the scene, rendering the prosecution's case doubtful. (Para 11 )
4. Where prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions and eyewitnesses cannot explain how the incident was observed under conditions of darkness, benefit of doubt must accrue to the accused. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. The appeal against the judgment of acquittal is dismissed. (Para 12 )
6. What is the impact of material contradictions in the testimonies of eye witnesses on the prosecution's case?
Material contradictions between the testimonies of different prosecution eye witnesses create significant doubt regarding the occurrence of the incident, requiring the court to extend the benefit of that doubt to the accused. (Para 11 )
7. Does the absence of lighting at the scene of an alleged offence discredit eyewitness testimony?
Yes, if the incident occurred in darkness and eye witnesses are unable to explain how they observed the events, their credibility is impaired, contributing to the failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 11 )
ORAL JUDGMENT
The State has preferred the appeal against Judgment of acquittal dated 20th August 2015 passed in Special case No.165 of 2009 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chamarajanagar.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank and status before the trial court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on 6th June 2009 at about 7.00pm in Bommanahalli Village, Gundlupet Taluk, Chamarajanagar district, accused 1 to 29 formed an unlawful assembly holding deadly weapons for committing riot and with a common object and the accused pulled down sign board of Samudaya Bhavana and the photo of Dr. Ambedkar with an intention to insult and humiliate the feelings of one community i.e. is Scheduled Caste, deliberately in the public view. Thus the accused committed alleged offences.
4. After filing chargesheet, cognizance was taken against the accused for alleged efforts and summons was issued to the accused. In response to the summons, all the accused appeared and were enlarged on bail. Accused no.2 did not appear before the Court in spite of issuing NBW. Hence a separate case is registered against accused no.2 in Special Case no.51/2010. Accused no.25 expired and the case was abated against him. On hearing, the trial Court framed charges for the alleged offences. The same were read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has, in all, examined 13 witnesses as PWs.1 to 13, marked 21 documents as Exs.P1 to P21 and marked 25 material objects as MOs.1 to 25.
6. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of accused nos.1, 3 to 24 and 26 to 29 has been recorded under section 313 of CRPC. Accused have totally denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them, but they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has acquitted accused 1, 3 to 12 and 14 to 24 and 26 to 29. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.
7. Sri. K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP would submit that the Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is illegal, invalid and contrary to law, evidence and material placed on record. He would submit that the trial Court has grossly erred in not appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the material placed on record in its proper perspective which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He would further submit that the prosecution, to prove the case, has examined PWs.1 to 7 and there was no reason to disbelieve the above witnesses who were the injured witnesses. PWs.1 to 7 have categorically stated that the accused assaulted them with hands, clubs and sickle causing injuries all over their body and also deposed that they were abused by taking their caste name, so also stones were thrown for damaging the signboard of Samudhaya Bhavana having photo and name of Dr B.R. Ambedkar. It is further submitted that the trial Court failed to see that the offence of committing atrocity against the depressed class is made punishable through special legislation, which is a social objective and as such strict interpretation of the statute could not have been pressed over by the trial Court.
On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal.
8. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that, the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and absolutely that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
9. I have examined the materials placed before this Court.
10. To substantiate the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses as PWs.1 to 13, 21 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to 21 and 25 material objects were marked as MOs.1 to 25. P
