Mere Allegations of Caste-Based Abuse Insufficient for SC/ST Act Conviction Without Consistent, Corroborated Evidence; Benefit of Doubt Paramount: Karnataka HC - 2025-05-16

Court Cases & Legal News.

Karnataka High Court Acquits Five in SC/ST Act Case, Cites Inconsistent Evidence and Prosecution's Failure to Prove Guilt

Bengaluru, Karnataka – April 15, 2025 – The Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling, has acquitted five individuals previously convicted by a trial court under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST (PA) Act), and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (PCR Act). Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramachandra D.Huddar , presiding over the criminal appeal, overturned the 2013 conviction by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, citing glaring inconsistencies, contradictions, and a lack of credible corroborative evidence from the prosecution.

The appellants, Giddappa and four others, were set at liberty as the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a complaint filed by Marakka (PW.1) on December 25, 2009. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with another accused (who was not part of this appeal), belonging to the Golla and Nayaka communities, were involved in an incident stemming from a dispute over cutting firewood from Government Gomala land in Bodihalli village.

It was alleged that on the evening of December 25, 2009, when the complainant and PW.2 (Jayamma) were proceeding towards a panchayat meeting, accused No.1 ( Giddappa ) and accused No.3 (Eranna) abused them in filthy language, taking their caste name ("Madiga community"), and attempted to outrage their modesty. Other accused allegedly supported these actions and spoke of social boycott.

The trial court had convicted Giddappa , Eranna S/o Boodeppa, Eranna S/o Huliyappa, Kaldappa, and Chandrappa (accused Nos. 1, 3 to 6) for offences including unlawful assembly (Sec 143 IPC), rioting (Sec 147 IPC), wrongful restraint (Sec 341 IPC), intentional insult (Sec 504 IPC), criminal intimidation (Sec 506 IPC), and outraging modesty (Sec 354 IPC, specifically for accused No.1). Crucially, they were also convicted under Sec 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xv), and 3(1)(xi) (for accused No.1) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, and Sec 7(1)(b) of the PCR Act, with sentences ranging from one month to three years of simple imprisonment and fines.

Arguments Before the High Court

The appellants, represented by Sri. Umesh P.B. , argued that the trial court's conviction was contrary to law and evidence. They contended that the prosecution suppressed material facts, relied on interested witnesses whose testimonies were uncorroborated, and that the evidence was riddled with contradictions, omissions, and discrepancies. A delay in filing the complaint was also highlighted.

The State, represented by Sri. Channappa Erappa (HCGP), maintained that the witnesses, though related, spoke the truth. It was argued that ill will motivated the accused, stemming from the complainant's family cultivating government land. The prosecution asserted that the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 was legal, acceptable, and corroborated.

High Court's Scrutiny: Evidence Riddled with Doubt

Justice Huddar meticulously re-appreciated the evidence on record, a power vested in the First Appellate Court. The judgment detailed numerous inconsistencies and improvements in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses:

PW.1 ( Marakka , Complainant): Her testimony about the incident, caste-based abuse, and assault was found to be inconsistent. During cross-examination, she admitted to not knowing the contents of her complaint (Ex.P1) as she was illiterate. The court noted a pre-existing dispute over cultivation of Government Gomala land. "It appears that, she wanted to improve her version," the Court observed regarding new facts introduced during cross-examination, including receiving Rs. 25,000 as compensation from the Government post-complaint.

PW.2 (Jayamma, Eyewitness & Mother of PW.1): Her account of the incident, particularly the alleged dragging of PW.1's saree by accused No.1, contained discrepancies when compared to PW.1's version. The court noted the distance (100 feet) and time (9 p.m.) without evidence of sufficient lighting. "If the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is compared, we find inconsistent evidence in the evidence of both these witnesses," the judgment stated.

Other Witnesses (PW.3 to PW.7): The testimonies of other alleged eyewitnesses and panchas were also found to be contradictory, improved, or unreliable. For instance, PW.3 (Hanumanthappa) claimed he heard but did not see the "galata," and his account of who dragged whom differed. PW.5 (Pathalingappa) was deemed not an eyewitness as per his own chief-examination. PW.6, a pancha witness, was ignorant of the contents of the panchanama (Ex.P2). PW.7 (Honnuraswamy), who PW.1 claimed typed the complaint, denied doing so.

Medical Evidence (PW.8, Dr. Shama Parveen ): The doctor who examined PW.1 found "no injuries on the person of complainant" and opined that "there is no sexual assault taken place," contradicting the allegations of assault.

Investigating Officer (PW.10, Dy. S.P Bommanahal ): Cross-examination revealed that the IO had not collected crucial documents like proof of residence for the witnesses and that PW.1 had not mentioned certain key allegations (like being denied soap at a shop or imposition of fine by panchayat) during her statement recording.

The Court emphasized the prosecution's duty to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and the need for a corroborative chain of circumstances.

Key Judicial Observations

The High Court made several critical observations leading to the acquittal:

> "On reading the entire evidence spoken by the witnesses as discussed supra, except the self serving inconsistent evidence of PW.1, there is no material evidence placed on record by the prosecution that, really the accused persons had taken the name of the Caste of the complainant and her men and have thus violated the civil rights of the complainant." (Para 28)

> "Simply because there are some words being used by the accused persons, that do not mean that, there is violation of the provisions of aforesaid SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989. The dispute was with regard to the cultivation of the Government land." (Para 28)

> "When such incident is not duly proved in accordance with law, a doubt arising in the case of prosecution and that benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused persons." (Para 29)

The Court also noted the absence of independent witnesses despite claims that around 200 people were present during the alleged incident at the panchayat.

> "Though 200 peoples were very much available in the panchayat, when the incident took place, none of the independent witnesses are cited as a witness or examined by the prosecution. It was fatal to the case of prosecution. In a case of present nature, independent corroboration is quite necessary from independent witnesses, so as to believe the story stated by PW.1 and PW.2, but it is not so in this case." (Para 30)

The Verdict: Acquittal and Reiteration of Evidentiary Standards

Finding that the trial court had "wrongly come to the conclusion that, the prosecution has proved its case" and had "not properly assessed the evidence in proper perspective," the High Court allowed the appeal.

The Court ordered:

"(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed

(ii) The impugned judgment dated 27.04.2013 passed in Special Case No.5/2010 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga is hereby set-aside.

(iii) Consequentially, accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 named in the appeal memo are acquitted of the charges under Sections 143, 147, 341, 504, 506, 354 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 7(3) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. (And thereby, all charges for which they were convicted by the trial court)."

The appellants' bail bonds were cancelled, and they were set at liberty. This judgment underscores the judiciary's stringent adherence to the principle of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" and the necessity for consistent, credible, and corroborated evidence, especially in cases involving serious charges under special enactments like the SC/ST (PA) Act.