The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the State government’s appeal against the acquittal of 26 persons accused of pulling down a signboard bearing the name and photograph of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in a 2009 incident in Bommanahalli village, Chamarajanagar district. A single-judge bench of Justice G. Basavaraja held that the trial court’s decision to acquit the accused was legally sound, as the prosecution failed to explain how the witnesses identified the accused in darkness, and material contradictions in their testimony made the case unreliable.

The incident, which occurred on June 6, 2009, at around 7:00 p.m., allegedly involved 29 accused persons forming an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons. According to the prosecution, the accused pulled down the signboard of the Samudaya Bhavana and the portrait of Dr. Ambedkar with the intent to insult and humiliate the Scheduled Caste community in public view. They were also accused of assaulting several members of the community, using caste-based slurs, and causing injuries with hands, clubs, and a sickle. The case was registered under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with deadly weapons), 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (hurt with dangerous weapons), 506 (criminal intimidation), 427 (mischief causing damage), and 295A (deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings), along with Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The trial before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, began after charges were framed. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses, including seven injured eyewitnesses (PWs 1 to 7), a medical officer, and investigating officers. During the trial, one accused died, and another remained absconding, leaving 27 accused facing trial. In August 2015, the trial court acquitted all 27 accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Critical Issue of Darkness

The trial court’s primary reason for acquittal was the prosecution’s inability to explain how the eyewitnesses observed the incident. All eyewitnesses admitted that there was no electricity supply in the village from 6:45 p.m. on the day of the incident, meaning the spot was in complete darkness. Yet, none of them explained what source of light enabled them to identify the accused. The trial court noted this gap in its judgment, stating:

"It has come in the evidence of all eye witnesses that there was a darkness on the spot and there was no supply of electricity to the village on that date from 6.45 p.m. But no eye witnesses have explained as to how they observed the incident and in which light they observed the incident."

The trial court also highlighted several material contradictions in the testimonies of the key witnesses, including inconsistencies in the sequence of events, the number of accused, and the weapons used. These contradictions, the court found, cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s version.

State’s Appeal and High Court’s Review

Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State of Karnataka appealed to the High Court, arguing that the trial court had erred in its appreciation of evidence. The State’s counsel, Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, submitted that the injured eyewitnesses had given categorical testimony about the assault and the caste-based abuse, and that the trial court should have applied a strict interpretation of the SC/ST Act, given its social objective.

The respondents, represented by Sri. Manjunath N.D., countered that the trial court had correctly assessed the evidence and that there were no grounds to interfere with the acquittal.

Justice Basavaraja carefully re-examined the entire record, including the depositions of all 13 witnesses, the 21 marked documents, and the 25 material objects. The court observed that the trial court’s findings were based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and that no legal or factual error had been committed. The bench quoted the trial court’s conclusion and upheld it:

"On re-appreciation/reconsideration and re-examination of the entire material on record, I do not find any legal or factual error committed by the trial Court."

No Interference with Acquittal

The High Court emphasized that the trial court had given the accused the benefit of doubt after finding that the prosecution had not established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The contradictions in the eyewitness accounts, combined with the unexplained darkness, were sufficient to sustain the acquittal. The court dismissed the State’s appeal, holding that the trial court’s judgment did not warrant any interference.

The ruling confirms that the 26 accused persons (one had died during the pendency of the appeal) will not face retrial. The case stands closed with the dismissal of the appeal.