Karnataka High Court
Sannatammappa S/O Ramappa Barki vs Manjunath S/O Nagappa Duggatti on 14 January, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:411
CRL.A No. 100227 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100227 OF 2020 (A)
BETWEEN:
SANNATAMMAPPA S/O RAMAPPA BARKI,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
CHALAGERI VILLAGE, CHOWDESHWARI NAGAR,
1ST CROSS, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581110.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VENKATA RAO DESHMUKH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANJUNATH S/O NAGAPPA DUGGATTI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
MARUTI NAGAR, 1ST MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
RANEBENNUR, RANEBENNUR TALUK,
DIST: HAVERI-581110.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR,
RANEBENNUR POLICE STATION, RANEBENNUR,
Digitally signed by REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
KATTIMANI
Location: High
...RESPONDENTS
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
(BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR 2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION PROVISO TO
372 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT HAVERI IN
SPECIAL SC/ST CASE NO.47/2015 DATED 02/11/2019,
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND CONVICT
ACCUSED I.E., RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 324, 506 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(X) OF
SC/ST (PA) ACT, 1989.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:411
CRL.A No. 100227 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Venkata Rao Deshmukh, for Sri Aravind D.Kulkarni, learned counsel for appellant, Sri A.M.Gundawade, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2.
2. Complainant in Special SC-ST No.47/2015 is the appellant challenging the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge, Haveri in respect of the offence punishable under Section 324, 506 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SC & ST (POA) Act', for short).
3. Facts of the case are as under:
A complaint came to be lodged by the appellant herein with Ranebennur Police Station alleging the offences under Section 323, 324, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act.-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:411 CRL.A No. 100227 of 2020 HC-KAR
4. Complaint averments would reveal that accused being acquainted with the complainant demanded sum ₹50,000/- to facilitate charge sheet witness No.5 demanded ₹50,000/- from charge sheet witness No.4 to facilitate the charge sheet witness No.5 receiving the salary which was held by the BEO. An application was submitted by the accused under RTI Act. For which there was a reply to the effect that CW5 was not attending the school regularly and required complainant to approach him near the BEO Office on 24.07.2015 at about 06:30 p.m. Complainant was accompanied by charge sheet witness No.6 and 7 and all of them proceeded towards the office of the BEO of Ranebennur Town, wherein the accused said to have abused the complainant in a filthy language and held his shirt collar and assaulted him with hands and pushed him down, whereby complainant fell down and sustained bleeding injuries. Accused said to have given life threat and also knowing fully well that complainant belongs to Valmiki community, abused him in filthy language, taking out his caste name and causing insult in the public view.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:411 CRL.A No. 100227 of 2020 HC-KAR
5. Police after registering the case for the aforesaid offences, conducted a detailed investigation and filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 504, 323, 324 and 506 IPC and also for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (POA) Act.
6. Presence of the accused was secured and charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, complainant and other witnesses got examined as PW1 to PW14 including the investigation officers and placed on record 15 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits P1 to P15.
7. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, accused's statement as is contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and thereafter accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence, but marked a contradictory portion in the 161 Statement of PW5 as Exhibit D1.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:411 CRL.A No. 100227 of 2020 HC-KAR
8. On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 504 IPC and acquitted the accused for the remaining offences and imposed the fine of ₹2,000/- and ₹3,000/- for the offence under Section 504 and 323 IPC with default sentences and ordered fine compensation of ₹3,000/- out of the fine amount recovered from the accused to the complainant.
9. Accused did not challenge the filing of the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 323 and 504 IPC and paid the fine amount and it has become final insofar as accused is concerned.
10. The State also did not choose to file an appeal before this court for acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 324, 506 and provisions of 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (POA) Act. It is the complainant who has filed the present appeal before this Court.
11. In the first place, appeal is not filed under Section 14A of the SC & ST (POA) Act, but is filed under Section 372 -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:411 CRL.A No. 100227 of 2020 HC-KAR of the Cr.P.C. by the defacto complainant without filing an application for leave to appeal.
12. Office did not raise objections nor any order has been passed granting leave to the appellant.
13. Further, as against the order passed by the learned Special Judge on 02.11.2019, the appeal came to be filed on 27.07.2020 that is beyond 180 days of the passing of the judgment and from the date of obtaining the certified copy being 18.06.2020 which is beyond the prescribed time of 90 days.
14. Proviso to Section 14A(2) of the SC & ST (POA) Act would make it clear that such an appeal without an application seeking condonation of delay and beyond 180 days would be barred by time. Therefore, the appeal needs to be dismissed not only on the ground of maintainability but also on the ground of delay in the absence of any application being filed.
15. Even otherwise, on merits, there is a clear discussion in the impugned judgment to the effect that the -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:411 CRL.A No. 100227 of 2020 HC-KAR prosecution utterly failed to prove that there was an insult caused to the complainant in the public view by taking out the caste name while carrying out the discussion on Point No.5 by the learned trial Judge in Paragraph No.11.
16. Material evidence has been rightly appreciated by the learned trial Judge. So also for the offence under Section 506 of the IPC, the prosecution evidence is not sufficient enough to prove that there was a life threat.
17. Therefore, order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge would act as a double innocence to the accused and complainant has to establish before this Court that the reasoning is perverse in nature so as to annul the double innocence enjoyed by the second respondent-accused.
18. Further, when two views are permissible on same set of facts, it is settled principles of law that view that favours the accused must be preferred and the same has been preferred by the learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:411 CRL.A No. 100227 of 2020 HC-KAR
19. Thus on merits also, there are no grounds to admit the appeal for further consideration.
20. Hence, following order is passed:
ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE CLK CT:CMU/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 18