Karnataka HC Upholds Acquittal Of 3 Men Accused Of Caste Abuse And Wicket Assault, Citing Conflicting Witness Testimony

In brief

The question

Whether the State had made out grounds to interfere with the trial court’s judgment of acquittal

The court held

The Court answered the issue of interference in the negative and dismissed the State’s appeal, leaving the acquittal undisturbed

It also directed

It directed the Registry to send a copy of the judgment and the trial court records to the concerned court

01Facts

The prosecution alleged that, on 20 October 2012, while the complainant and another person were playing cricket at a school playground, the accused abused them by referring to their caste and one accused struck the complainant on the head with a cricket wicket

¶ 3, 10

The accused were charged under Sections 324, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

¶ 3–4

The trial court acquitted them, finding material discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution evidence

¶ 17

The State appealed under Section 378 Cr.P.C.

¶ 1 · p. 2

02Issues

i.Whether the State had made out grounds to interfere with the trial court’s judgment of acquittal

¶ 7

ii.What order should be made in the appeal following determination of that issue

¶ 7

03Law Applied

The Court considered the principles governing appeals against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence; the appellate court may reappraise the evidence but must not reverse an acquittal merely because another view is possible; and interference is warranted where the acquittal is perverse, materially misreads or omits evidence, or where the evidence permits no reasonable view other than guilt

¶ 9

The Court relied on Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2025) 5 SCC 433; Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149; Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415; and H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581

¶ 9

The charged offences were under Sections 324 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

¶ 3–4

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 378 Section 313

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 324 Section 504 Section 34

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3

04Reasoning

On reappraising the record, the High Court found no legal or factual error in the trial court’s assessment.

¶ 17–18

The trial court had considered the testimony of the complainant and other eyewitnesses but found that their accounts did not sufficiently corroborate one another and contained contradictions and discrepancies that raised doubt about the alleged incident

¶ 17–18

Applying the reinforced presumption of innocence and the rule that a reasonable view supporting acquittal must stand, the High Court found no basis to interfere

¶ 9, 18