THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs SUBHASH HEGDE

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61381
CRL.A No. 564 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010490502017



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 564 OF 2017 (A)

BETWEEN:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.
…APPELLANT




(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.)

AND:

1. SUBHASH HEGDE
S/O. VITTAL HEGDE,
AGED 33 YEARS,
R/O. HEGDE NIVASA,
MANTRADI, NELLIKARY VILLAGE,
MANGALURU TALUK-575 001.

2. HARISH ACHARYA
S/O. BABU ACHARYA,
AGED 28 YEARS,
R/O. HARIPRASAD HOUSE,
MANTRADI VILLAGE, PENCHARA POST,
MANGALURU TALUK-575 001.

3. VISHWANATHA POOJARY
S/O. SHANKARA POOJARY,
AGED 28 YEARS,
R/O. KEERTHI NIVASA, MANTRADI,
NELLIKARU VILLAGE,
MANGALURU TALUK-575 001.
…RESPONDENTS







Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN
N
Location: High
Court of Karnataka

(BY SRI. YATHIN B., ADV. FOR R1 & R2,
SRI. K. SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADV. FOR R3.)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61381
CRL.A No. 564 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010490502017


CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C BY THE S.P.P.
FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 09.11.2016 IN
SPL.C.NO.2/2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.
DIST. AND SESSIONS(SPL.)JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 324,504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(12)(x) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT


1. State has preferred this appeal against the
Judgment of acquittal dated 09.11.2016 passed in Special
Case No.2/2013 by the II Addl. District and Sessions
(Special) Judge, D.K., Mangaluru (for short “the trial
Court”).

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

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the
Assistant Commissioner of Police, North Sub-division,
Panambur, Mangaluru laid sheet against accused 1 to 3 for
the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504 read with

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61381
CRL.A No. 564 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010490502017


34 and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is alleged by the
prosecution that on 20.10.2012 when victims Ramesh and
Manikanta were playing cricket in the playground of
Mantradi Higher Primary School, accused 1 and 3, having
common object, abused CWs.1 and 2 by referring to their
caste and also tried to assault them. Upon questioning the
same by CW1, accused No.2 fisted CW1 and gave blow
with wicket to his head causing injury to him. Then
accused Nos.1 to 3 fled from the spot. Thus, the accused
committed the alleged offences.

4. After filing charge sheet, the trial Court has
taken cognizance against the accused for commission of
alleged offences. Accused appeared before the Court and
were enlarged on bail. On hearing, the trial Court framed
charges against the accused for alleged offences. The
same were read over and explained to the accused in the
language known to them. The accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused,

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61381
CRL.A No. 564 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010490502017


18 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 18, 28
documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P28 and two
material objects were marked as MOs.1 and 2. On closure
of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused
under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. Accused have
totally denied the evidence appearing against them,
however, they did not choose to lead any defence
evidence on their behalf. Having heard the arguments on
both sides, the trial Court acquitted the accused. Being
aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has
preferred this appeal.

5. The learned HCGP Sri K Nageshwarappa
appearing for appellant-State, would submit that the
Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is contrary
to evidence and material and record. The learned Judge
has failed to properly appreciate the evidence placed on
record in its proper perspective and the same has resulted
in the miscarriage of Justice. He would submit that the
PW1 is the complainant and the injured and he has

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61381
CRL.A No. 564 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010490502017


deposed against 1 to 3 that with an intention, they picked
up quarrel and abused him and others in filthy language
by referring their caste. He was assaulted with wicket on
his head due to which he lost his conscious. The evidence
of injured/complainant is corroborated by the evidence of
PWs2 to 4, 8 and 10, which clearly disclose that the
accused picked-up quarrel raising caste issue and abused
PW2 in filthy language insulting his caste. PW16 is the
Medical Officer, who treated the injured PW1. He has
clearly deposed that he examined PW1 on 20.10.2012 at
and noticed injury on his head and after treating him, he
has issued wound certificate as per Exhibit P25. He has
also stated that the said injury could be caused by wicket-
MO1. Hence the prosecution has proved its case. The
learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on
record in its proper perspective and has come to wrong
conclusion. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the
appeal.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61381
CRL.A No. 564 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010490502017



6. Sri Yathin B, learned counsel for respondents 1
and 2 and Sri K, Shashikanth Prasad learned counsel for
respondent No.3, would support the impugned judgment
of acquittal and submit that the trial Court has properly
appreciated the evidence in accordance with law and
accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Having heard the arguments on both sides and
on perusal of materials placed before this Court, the
following points would arise for my consideration:
(1) Whether the State has made out grounds
to interfere with the judgment of
acquittal?
(2) What order?


8. My answer to the above points as under:
Point No.1: in the negative;
Point No.2: as per final order.

Regarding Point No.1:


9. Before appreciation of evidence on record, it is
necessary to mention as to the judgments of the Hon'ble

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61381
CRL.A No. 564 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010490502017


Apex Court in the case of CONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA
SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
reported in (2025)5 SCC 433; BABU SAHEBGOUDA
RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
reported in (2024)8 SCC 149; CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in (2007)4 SCC 415; and H.D.
SUNDARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2023)9
SCC 581. The principles governing exercise of appellate
jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against judgment
of acquittal under section 378 of Code of Criminal
Procedure are, the acquittal of the accused further
strengthens the presumption of innocence; the appellate
court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled
to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence; the
appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal,
after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider
whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view
which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence
on record; if the view taken is a possible view, the

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61381
CRL.A No. 564 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010490502017


appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on
the ground that another view was also possible; and the
appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal
only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which
can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record
was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a
reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.
The interference by an appellate court for reversing the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour
of the accused has to be exercised only if the judgment of
acquittal suffers from patent perversity; the same is based
on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on
record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and
only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is
possible from the evidence available on record

10. I have examined the materials placed before
this Court. It is the case of the prosecution that, on
20.10.2012 at about 5:30 pm, when victims Ramesh and
Manikanta were playing cricket in the playground of

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61381
CRL.A No. 564 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010490502017


Mantradi Higher Primary School, accused 1 and 3, having
common object, abused CWs1 and 2 by referring to their
caste and intentionally insulted them with intent to
provoke breach of the public peace. Further, it is alleged
that accused No.1 pushed PW1 and thereafter accused
No.2 picked up a wicket and assaulted on the back side of
the head of PW1 causing simple hurt. The accused
knowing fully well that CWs.2 and 3 belong to Scheduled
Caste, intentionally insulted and intimidated with intent to
humiliate members of Scheduled Caste. Thus, the
accused have committed the alleged offences.

11. PW1-Nithin Jain is the first informant and is
stated to be injured in the incident. PW2-Ramesha, PW3-
Manikanta, PW4-Ramesha, PW5-Francis, PW6-Shashidhara
Poojary, PW7-Ravi, PW8-Ashok Kumar, PW9-Jinendra Jain,
and PW10-Rajesh Acharya, stated to be the eyewitnesses
to this incident. PW11-Praveen Kumar is also an
eyewitness to the seizure mahazar-Ex.P17.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61381
CRL.A No. 564 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010490502017



12. PW12-Harischandra Acharya and PW17-Srinath
N Suvarna are the attesting witnesses to the seizure
mahazar Ex.P18.

13. PW-13-Manjappa is the Head Constable and
PW18-Ravi Kumar S, SP Lokayukta, have deposed as to
their respective investigation.

14. PW14-Purushothama, Police Constable has
deposed as to the arrest of the accused and produced
before the SHO.

15. PW-15-Mohammed Hussain, Police Constable
has deposed in his evidence as to carrying of FIR to the
Magistrate.

16. PW16-Dr. Gruruprasad Adiga has deposed as to
the treatment extended to the injured and also found
injuries as per Ex.P25-Wound Certificate.

17. On appreciation of the entire evidence on
record, in paragraph 24 of the judgment, the trial Court
has observed as under:

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61381
CRL.A No. 564 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010490502017


"24. In the background of the above stated
evidence by the prosecution witnesses, the say of the
investigating officers namely P.W.13 to P.W.15 and
P.W.17 will not be of much consequence, since they had
spoken only about their respective role in the
investigation. On a perusal and appreciation of the
evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is seen that though
the first informant/P.W.1 and other eyewitnesses have
supported the prosecution case, their evidence is not
corroborating to each other to inspire the confidence of
the court. There are many discrepancies in their evidence.
The first informant and some other prosecution witnesses
though stated more or less as per the prosecution version
of the case, there are many contradictions found in their
cross-examination, which would make the case of the
prosecution doubtful. These contradictions and
discrepancies in the say of the prosecution witnesses
would create a grave doubt regarding the alleged incident
and the offences alleged against the accused. Under these
circumstances, the benefit of doubt naturally goes to the
accused. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt for the aforesaid offences.
Accordingly, the points No.1 to 3 are answered in the
negative."


18. On re-appreciation, re-consideration and re-
examination of the entire evidence on record, I do not find
any legal or factual error committed by the trial Court.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61381
CRL.A No. 564 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010490502017


Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
also keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
Regarding Point No.2

19. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions,
I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
Appeal is dismissed .
The Registry is directed to send copy of the judgment
along with Trial Court Records, to the concerned Court.


Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE





LNN,DHA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50