Mere Caste Identity Not Enough to Attract Atrocities Act: Karnataka High Court Acquits Accused in Village Assault Case

"Offence Must Be Committed Solely on Caste Grounds" –  In a significant reaffirmation of settled legal principle on the scope of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, on 13th January 2026, acquitted all accused in Umesh Babu T.S @ Umesh & Others vs. State of Karnataka, holding that mere proof of the victim’s caste is insufficient to sustain a conviction under the Atrocities Act without clear evidence that the offence was committed on account of such caste identity.

Justice G. Basavaraja, presiding over the criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, found that the conviction recorded by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Special Case No.50/2013, was unsustainable, as it was based on interested testimonies, absence of medical corroboration, and failure to establish caste-based animus.

“Caste of Victim Alone Cannot Be the Basis of Conviction” — Court Relies on Supreme Court Ruling in Patan Jamal Vali

The trial court had convicted the appellants for voluntarily causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons and for violating Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, awarding sentence based on the alleged caste-based abuse and assault. However, the High Court emphasized that under Section 3(2)(v), the offence must be shown to have been committed solely on the ground that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

Citing the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2021) AIR SC 2190], Justice Basavaraja noted:

“It is pertinent to mention... that the offence under Section 3(2)(v) must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste. Mere proof of caste identity is not sufficient.”

In this case, the existence of a prior dispute over aquaculture rights in the village tank was well established. The complainant (PW2) himself admitted that he had prior litigation and conflict with the accused over fishing rights. Therefore, the assault could not be attributed solely to caste-based animosity, thereby nullifying the charge under Section 3(2)(v).

Independent Witnesses Turn Hostile, Medical Evidence Found Lacking

The High Court strongly noted that the prosecution's case collapsed under its own inconsistencies. Although PWs 1 to 3 (the complainant and his family members) alleged caste-based abuse and assault with a wooden reaper, all independent eyewitnesses (PWs 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10) turned hostile, denied prosecution’s version, and refused to support police statements under Section 161 CrPC.

“There is no cogent, corroborative or clinching evidence to support the prosecution case,” the Court observed.

Further, medical evidence failed to back claims of grievous injury. Though PW5 (doctor) claimed that PW2 suffered a nasal fracture, the Court flagged multiple lapses:

• No X-ray reports were produced.
• No Radiologist or Orthopaedic Specialist was examined.
• PW2 and PW3 had no external injuries, despite allegations of being beaten with a wooden reaper.
• Doctor admitted PW2 was in a drunken state when brought to the hospital.

“Had the injury been caused by a wooden reaper, ordinarily, a bruise or contusion would have been present. Absence of any such external injury creates doubt,” Justice Basavaraja noted.

Testimonies Found Inconsistent, Unsafe to Convict on Interested Witnesses Alone

The Court also found material contradictions in the deposition of PW1 (daughter of injured) and PW3 (wife of injured). While PW1 claimed women accused (Parvathi and Chikkathayamma) kicked her mother, PW3’s testimony implicated Umesh and Srinivasa Gowda instead. This discrepancy further eroded the credibility of the prosecution’s version.

“It is unsafe to base a conviction solely on the uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses, especially when independent witnesses turn hostile and medical evidence is absent,” the Court held.

Delay in Lodging Complaint Adds to Prosecution’s Doubt

Another factor contributing to the acquittal was the unexplained delay in filing the FIR. Although the incident allegedly took place at 8:30 p.m. on 20.05.2013, the complaint was lodged only at 12:30 a.m. on 21.05.2013, and no plausible explanation was offered.

“Delay, when unexplained and coupled with weak evidence, casts a shadow over the truthfulness of the incident,” the Court noted.

Conviction Set Aside, Fine to Be Refunded, Bail Bonds Cancelled

Summing up, Justice G. Basavaraja found that the trial court had erred in relying on shaky, uncorroborated evidence, and had failed to appreciate the legal requirement under the SC/ST Act for proving caste-based motive. The Court categorically ruled:

“The judgment and order on sentence passed by the trial Court is erroneous and contrary to the principles of criminal jurisprudence.”

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Date of Decision: 13 January 2026