SURYAKANT vs CHANDRAPPA @ CHANDRAKANT

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11542-DB
CRL.A No. 200197 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030055902026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200197 OF 2026

(372(Cr.PC)/413(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SURYAKANT
S/O SHARNAPPA BANDU,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE, R/O: SIDDESHWAR,
TALUKA : BHALKI,
DISTRICT : BIDAR – 585 413.
…APPELLANT

(BY SRI RAMCHANDRA K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. CHANDRAPPA @ CHANDRAKANT
S/O REVANAPPA MALAGE,
AGE : 46 YEARS,
R/O: SIDDESHWAR,
TALUKA : BHALKI,
DISTRICT: BIDAR – 585 413.

2. HANMANTH
S/O SURYAKANT MALAGE,
AGE : 33 YEARS, R/O: SIDDESHWAR,
TALUKA : BHALKI,
DISTRICT: BIDAR – 585 413.







Digitally
signed by
SHIVALEELA
D UDAGI
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11542-DB
CRL.A No. 200197 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030055902026



3. BHAKTARAJ
S/O SURYAKANT MALAGE,
AGE : 38 YEARS, R/O: SIDDESHWAR,
TALUKA : BHALKI,
DISTRICT: BIDAR – 585 413.

4. SHIVU @ SHIVAKUMAR
S/O SANGAPPA @ SANGSHETTY PATIL,
AGE : 35 YEARS, R/O: SIDDESHWAR,
TALUKA : BHALKI,
DISTRICT: BIDAR – 585 413.

5. BASAVARAJ
S/O SUBHASH KANJE,
AGE : 35 YEARS,
R/O: SIDDESHWAR,
TALUKA : BHALKI,
DISTRICT: BIDAR – 585 413.

6. ANIL
S/O CHANDRAKANT JAINAPUR @ BULLA,
AGE : 34 YEARS,
R/O: SIDDESHWAR,
TALUKA : BHALKI,
DISTRICT: BIDAR – 585 413.

7. SHIRKANT
S/O SURYAKANT MALAGE,
AGE : 36 YEARS,
R/O: SIDDESHWAR,
TALUKA : BHALKI,
DISTRICT: BIDAR – 585 413.

8. SIDDU @ SIDRAM
S/O GHALEPPA @ VEERSHETTY KHANDRE,
AGE : 36 YEARS,
R/O: SIDDESHWAR,
TALUKA : BHALKI,
DISTRICT : BIDAR – 585 413.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11542-DB
CRL.A No. 200197 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030055902026



9. VIJAYKUMAR
S/O DESHAPPA TARNALLE,
AGE : 34 YEARS,
R/O: SIDDESHWAR,
TALUKA : BHALKI,
DISTRICT : BIDAR – 585 413.

10. SACHIN @ ANILKUMAR
S/O VITHAL MADARE,
AGE : 36 YEARS, R/O: SIDDESHWAR,
TALUKA : BHALKI,
DISTRICT : BIDAR – 585 413.

11. SHIVAKUMAR S/O KASHEPPA GAUR,
AGE : 36 YEARS,
R/O: SIDDESHWAR,
TALUKA : BHALKI,
DISTRICT : BIDAR – 585 413.

12. VIJAYKUMAR
S/O RAJEPPA @ RAJKUMAR BELLALE,
AGE : 36 YEARS,
R/O: SIDDESHWAR,
TALUKA : BHALKI,
DISTRICT : BIDAR – 585 413.

13. SURYAKANT
S/O MAHARUDRAPPA MALAGE,
AGE : 63 YEARS,
R/O: SIDDESHWAR,
TALUKA : BHALKI,
DISTRICT : BIDAR – 585 413.

14. VINOD
S/O GANAPATI NIDODE,
AGE : 35 YEARS,
R/O: SIDDESHWAR,
TALUKA : BHALKI,
DISTRICT : BIDAR – 585 413.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11542-DB
CRL.A No. 200197 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030055902026



15. ANILKUMAR
S/O ANNEPPA HARPALLE,
AGE : 40 YEARS,
R/O: SIDDESHWAR,
TALUKA : BHALKI,
DISTRICT : BIDAR – 585 413.

16. SHANTAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA BELLALE,
AGE : 45 YEARS,
R/O: SIDDESHWAR,
TALUKA : BHALKI,
DISTRICT : BIDAR – 585 413.

17. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH DHANNURA PS BIDAR.
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT KALABURAGI.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ANILKUMAR NAVADAGI, ADDL. SPP FOR R17)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 413
OF BNSS (UNDER SECTION 372 OF CR.P.C) PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN SPECIAL CASE (SC/ST
NO.920/2018) ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR IN SPECIAL CASE NO.920/2018
AND FURTHER CONVICTED THE RESPONDENT FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 427,
324, 323, 326, 354, 504 AND 506 READ WITH 149 OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE 1860 AND SECTIONS 3(1)(R)(S)(W), 3(2)(V) AND
3(2)(VA) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11542-DB
CRL.A No. 200197 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030055902026


ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
The appellant filed this appeal under Section 372 of
Cr.P.C. (413 of BNSS, 2023) challenging the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 24.09.2025 passed in Special Case No.
920/2018 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge
and Special Court, Bidar, (for short ‘the Trial Court’), wherein
the Trial Court acquitted the respondent Nos.1 to 16 for the
offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 323,
324, 326, 354, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of Indian
Penal Code, 1806, and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)
(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are as
follows:
On 25.03.2018 at about 10:30 p.m., during
Siddheshwara Jatra fair, when CW.11-Baburao had opened a
tea stall, accused No.1 herein insulted him, taking the name of
his caste and by throwing all the materials, caused damage of
Rs.4,000/-. It is further alleged that on 26.03.2018 at 09:00
a.m., near Ambedkar Bhavan, all the accused/respondents

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11542-DB
CRL.A No. 200197 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030055902026


armed with dangerous weapons, committed rioting, insulted
and assaulted CWs.1 to CWs.22, having the knowledge that
they belongs to scheduled caste and respondents are the
members of Lingaraj community. It is further alleged that all
the accused assaulted, insulted and intimidated CWs.1 to
CWs.22. Hence, based on the complaint given by CW.1,
Dhanura Police have registered a case in Crime No.55 of 2018
for the aforesaid offences. The police after investigation filed
charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. The Trial Court
furnished the copy of the charge sheet as contemplated under
Section 207 of Cr.P.C. to the respondents. Thereafter, the Trial
Court framed the charges against the respondents for the
above said offences and the charges were read over to the
respondents. The respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.

3. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined 27
charge sheeted witnesses as PWs.1 to 27 and marked 36
documents as Exs.P1 to P36 and MOs.1 to 3. The statement of
the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The
accused having denied the incriminating evidence, accused

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11542-DB
CRL.A No. 200197 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030055902026


have not lead any oral or documentary evidence. The Trial
Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed
the following points for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that on 25-03-2018 at about
10.30 p.m. near Siddhesh-wara temple at
Enakallu village, accused No.1 insulted CW1
and CW11, taking the name of their caste and
thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.
504 IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989?
2. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that on the above said date,
time and place accused No.1 dragged CW11
and attempted to outrage her modesty and
thereby committed an offence punishable
u/s.354 IPC and Sec.3(1)(w) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 ?
3. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that on the above said date,
time and place accused No.1 having damaged
the cart, tea stall and the materials caused
damage to an extent of Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/-
to CW11 and thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s. 427 IPC ?
4. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that on the above said date,
time and place accused No.1 assaulted CW1 on
his face causing pain and thereby committed an
offence punishable u/s. 323 IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that on 26-03-2018 at 9 am,
in Siddeshwara village near Ambedkar Bhavan,
all the accused herein armed with stones and
clubs, formed unlawful assembly and committed

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11542-DB
CRL.A No. 200197 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030055902026


rioting and thereby committed offences
punishable u/s. 143, 147, 148 R/w 149 IPC ?
6. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that on the above said date,
time and place all the accused insulted CW1 to
22, taking the name of their caste and the
accused being members of Lingayat community,
committed offences punishable u/s. 3(1)(r)(s),
3(2) (v), 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Attrocities) Act, 1989 ?
7. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that on the above said date,
time and place in prosecution of common
object, accused assaulted CW8, CW9, CW11
with stones and clubs causing simple and
grievous injuries and thereby committed an
offence punishable u/s. 323, 324, 326 R/w 149
IPC ?
8. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that on the above said date,
time and place in prosecution of common
object, accused intimidated CW1 to 22 to do
away with their lives and thereby committed an
offence punishable u/s.506 R/w 149 IPC ?
9. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that on the above said date,
time and place in prosecution of common
object, all the accused insulted CW1 to 22 in
abusive language and thereby committed an
offence punishable u/s. 504 R/w 149 IPC.?
10. What order?


4. After appreciating the entire evidence on record, the Trial
Court, answered point Nos.1 to 9 in the negative and point

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11542-DB
CRL.A No. 200197 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030055902026


No.10, as per the final order and the respondent Nos.1 to 16
were acquitted for the above said offences by judgment dated
24.09.2025.

5. The defacto complainant aggrieved by the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 24.09.2025 passed in Special Case
No.920 of 2018, filed this appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the defacto complainant
and learned Addl. SPP.

7. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant submits that
some of the charge sheeted witnesses are injured witnesses
and they have supported the case of the prosecution to prove
that the accused have assaulted the complainant and other
charge-sheeted witnesses. They have supported the case of the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. The Trial Court
has not properly appreciated the entire evidence on record and
committed an error in passing the judgment and order of
acquittal. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the trial Court is against the records. Hence, on this
ground he prays to dismiss allow of the appeal.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11542-DB
CRL.A No. 200197 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030055902026



8. Perused the records and considered the submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties. The point that would arise
for our consideration is:

a. Whether the appellant proves that the
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the
Trial Court is arbitrary and perverse?

b. What order?


9. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined the
complainant as PW.1. In the examination-in-chief he has
reiterated the complaint averments and the complaint was
marked as Ex.P1. PW.1 has been partly treated as hostile and
during the cross-examination by the counsel appearing for the
respondent, he had admitted that in the said Siddheshwara
Jatra fair, there were more than 1000 people and he admitted
in paragraph 10 that he did not saw the alleged incident that
had taken place 100 meters far from where he was standing
and he was unable to tell to which particular accused beaten
whom and with what kind of weapon. The prosecution
examined one Sudhakar as PW.3. He has deposed that on
25.03.2018, his father put a push cart in Siddheshwara Jatra

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11542-DB
CRL.A No. 200197 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030055902026


fair and he had gone there at 09:00 p.m., to watch drama and
at that time accused No.1 quarreled with his father and he did
not listen to ask any abuses. He has deposed that all the
accused came near Budha Mandir and insulted him and
assaulted him with a stick. He has been partly treated hostile.
Even PW.3 as been treated hostile. PW.4 who is said to be an
eyewitness i.e., Dilieep, he has deposed that on 25.03.2018 at
10:00 p.m., accused No.1 came to the place where CW.11 had
kept pusch cart and abused CW.11 taking the name of his caste
and assaulted him on his face with his fist. He has further
deposed that he does not know who beaten whom as
there were many people at the place. (emphasis
supplied) and he cannot say as to which accused assaulted
with what kind of weapon. He has deposed that accused Nos.6
and 14 assaulted him with stone on right thigh. Again during
the cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he
admitted all the suggestions made by the Public Prosecutor.
PW.6, who is also said to be an eye witness, he has deposed in
par with PW.4. Even this witness was unable to say the names
of all the accused and she was also admitted that she cannot

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11542-DB
CRL.A No. 200197 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030055902026


say as to who were armed with MO.1 to 3. PW.7 has deposed
that all the accused were abused her taking the name of her
caste. During the cross examination, she has stated that she
does not know the names of all the accused and she cannot say
as to who among the accused assaulted to which of the
witnesses and with what kind of weapon. The prosecution
examined PW.8, i.e. Sangeeta, who has deposed that about
five and half years back there was a quarrel at about 10:30
p.m. between CW.11 and accused No.1 with regard to keeping
push cart and accused abused him. She further deposed that
on the next day at 09:00 a.m., near Ambedkar circle quarrel
was going on and all the accused armed with sticks and stones
came there and accused No.14 threw stone and assaulted her.
It is elicited that during the course of cross examination that,
she does not know the name of all the accused and she cannot
say as to who among the accused had possessed MOs.1 to 3
and she cannot say as to who among the accused was armed
with stone and who was armed with stick and she admits that
there were 400 to 500 people assembled at that place. The
Prosecution examined PW.9-Siddamma, she is the wife of

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11542-DB
CRL.A No. 200197 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030055902026


PW.10, who is said to be an eyewitness and injured in both the
incident dated 25.03.2018 and 26.03.2018. During the cross
examination, she has admitted that she cannot say as to who
among the accused possessed MOs.1 to 3 and she cannot say
who among the accused assaulted which of the witnesses with
the stone and she admits that near Ambedkar circle there were
about 400 to 500 people were assembled. The prosecution
examined PW.10, who is also an injured witness. He has
deposed in par with PW.9. Even this witness says that he
cannot say who assaulted whom with what kind of weapon. The
prosecution examined another witness injured witness as
PWs.11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19 and 20. They were deposed in par
with other injured witnesses, but they were unable to say who
assaulted whom with what kind of weapons. The prosecution
examined the Engineer, who has prepared the sketch as PW.24
and the sketch map is marked as Ex.P29 and Investigating
Officers were examined as PWs.26 and 27. Admittedly, the
counter case has been registered and pending before the Court
at Bhalki.

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11542-DB
CRL.A No. 200197 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030055902026



10. From the perusal of the entire records, it is clear that
none of the witnesses were in a position to say who assaulted
whom with what kind of weapon. The prosecution witnesses
were unable to identify the accused who assaulted them and
which type of weapon is being used at the time of alleged
commission of offence. The trial Court, after perusing the
records, recorded its finding that there is no mention that
accused No.9 was present on the date, time and place of
alleged incident. Admittedly, there is a case and counter case
against the accused and the complainant and against the
prosecution witnesses and the accused. Admittedly, 400 to 500
people were present at the spot. The Investigating Officer has
not recorded the statement of independent witnesses who were
present on the spot and none of the witnesses have specifically
stated as to which of the accused assaulted which of the
prosecution witnesses as stated in the complaint. It creates a
doubt in the mind of the Court in regard to which accused has
assaulted which prosecution witness. The trial Court has rightly
held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the trial Court has

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11542-DB
CRL.A No. 200197 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030055902026


rightly appreciated the entire evidence on record and rightly
passed the impugned judgment.

11. The scope of interference in the case of acquittal is very
limited in view of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of
Kerala 2022 SCC Online SC 495,
reported in wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court held at para 25 as follows:
“25. While dealing with an appeal against the acquittal
by invoking Section 378 of Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court
has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be
termed as a possible one, particularly when the evidence
on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an
order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate
Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of
Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the
presumption in favour of the accused does not get
weakened but only strengthened. Such a double
presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to
be disturbed only through scrutiny on accepted legal
parameters.”


12. In view of the above discussion, the point for
consideration is answered in the negative and we proceed to
pass the following:

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11542-DB
CRL.A No. 200197 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030055902026


ORDER
The Criminal Appeal is dismissed .

Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE




MSR/VNR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6